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."

Comments

I see no problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I sold a few hundred in text books that felt like a part time job. $20k is no joke.

Re:I see no problem with this

[ezweave]

The point is not that they shouldn't pay taxes, the point is that there are already avenues in place to get this information. I think it should be illegal for governments to demand private information from eBay or etsy or the like without having a reason to investigate.

Re:I see no problem with this

[Baloroth]

The government can ask for whatever they like, which is what they are doing. It sounds like it is completely up to Ebay to cooperate or not: they aren't "demanding" the names. If they start forcing Ebay to cooperate, that would be a little different. Also, the fact they are publicizing this is a good thing, rather than simply asking behind the scenes.

Re:I see no problem with this

[Sir_Sri]

And the government may sensibly require ebay to turn over records of anyone selling over 20k or whatever it is on their service. Just as the government can demand your employer turn over your salary information. Ebay isn't your employer, but if you're moving that much money with them there's probably a good case for 'self reporting of income' to require ebay to verify all of it, which means they'd have to dump the data to the government. That might (probably does) mean new laws. But there's nothing particularly wrong with new laws.

That doesn't mean the income is necessarily taxable either. Or at least 20k isn't taxable.

I don't know how it should be illegal for the government to get this information. Really ebay could be obliged to report *all* sales to the government as part of doing business wherever they are.

Re:I see no problem with this

[cpu6502]

And those books probably cost you several thousand, so you had a loss. You had no taxable income.

Re:I see no problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is doing it carte blanche instead of obtaining a warrant to do so when you have probable cause.

Re:I see no problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxation thing aside, isn't Centrelink like their welfare? If people are moving tens of thousands in product over ebay, it's worth knowing if they're scamming the Aussie welfare system while making enough that they don't need it.

Re:I see no problem with this

[Dr Damage I]

If it's worth knowing, it's worth getting a warrant

Re:I see no problem with this

[HJED]

So your saying that the government requires a warrent to do a tax audit? Because that is basically what they are doing.

Re:I see no problem with this

[Dr Damage I]

Actually, no. They're conducting a criminal investigation into welfare fraud.

Re:I see no problem with this

[zaphodbeeblebox]

Correct this isn't tax, it is Welfare. Basically the government is giving these people money because they are either un-employed or under employed, are retired or have a disability. The government is trying to determine if those people have been receiving more money than they should be by not declaring income. that aside, the information they are asking Ebay for is not that that detailed, and I wouldn't call it a gross invasion of privacy. . Basically they are matching the person to the ebay account and then confirming if they filled in a field saying they earnt this money. If so, no problems, if not, send to invesigators for further checking.

Re:I see no problem with this

[Meski]

CL and ATO share info, so at worst CL can ask ATO to obtain it :) ATO already know my bank/share positions, can't see why they should not know if I'm making over 20k on ebay.

I don't see the outrage

[The Dancing Panda]

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.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[6ULDV8]

eBay also has the right to say "not without due process" as it applies to the jurisdiction.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Cimexus]

Yeah, inclined to agree. I'm no more of a fan of government intrusion into more areas of life than the next guy, but 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). This is no different than the dodgy guy down the road claiming Centrelink benefits without declaring his job, or claiming for non-existent children etc.

$20k seems like a reasonable threshold too, though perhaps you'd want to also add a minimum number of items threshold as well (someone turning over many items to make $20k can probably be said to be a 'business on the side', whereas someone who just does a one-off sale of something expensive, say a car, and who isn't likely to use Ebay much on an on-going basis, is a different story).

Re:I don't see the outrage

[mcmonkey]

One issue is, there's no way this info stays with the welfare folks. It's going to go to the tax revenue folks as well. And the drug folks to see if anyone is selling paraphernalia. And half a dozen other agencies.

The way modern governments and law have developed, you're pretty much guaranteed to be breaking some law.

But directly to DP's point, if there's evidence or reasonable suspicion someone is breaking the law, and the government goes after that person, that's not necessarily an invasion of privacy.

But this kind of fishing expedition is pretty much by definition an invasion of privacy.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[cpu6502]

The problem is that Ebay is not pure income. I didn't sell anywhere near $20,000 last year... more like $5000. But that's NOT really profit. The $5000 of used games/books/video originally cost me ~$7000 to acquire. So the net profit is negative income (a loss). I'd still be entitled to collect welfare or unemployment checks.

I would expect the tax agency to understand that basic principle, but I suspect they are more motivated by the desire to pay-off their budget deficit and will scew a lot of innocent people in the process..... people who are selling-off their possessions in order to survive unemployment, and actually losing money in the process. (Like my cousin who sold-off his $20,000 motorcycle for $10,000 just so he could buy food.)

Re:I don't see the outrage

[jmorris42]

But! But! This is on the Internet! None of the meatspace rules are supposed to apply here!

Bullcrap. Avoiding sales tax across state lines in the US dates back to Sears Roebuck and even makes some sort of sense. But the idea of somehow being beyond the law just because of the Internet is barmy. eBay is involved in the transaction as a broker. Here in the U.S. they should be forced into at least filing a Form 1099 or something, getting the state taxes comes back to the same problem as sales tax. And I'm sure Austrailia has a similar procedure to report income for non-employee contactor/consignment/etc sitautions. The actual story here is that they haven't been reporting this sort of income for years. Sounds like they need a knot yanked in their asses.

I'm a conservative with so many libertarian leanings I's switch if the LP wasn't overrun with Idiotarian Libertarians who seem to only care about being worse surrender monkeys than than Dems and legalizing weed. But there must be taxes and nobody gets a pass on paying them. How high should the rates be I'll be happy to argue; too damned high! But ya gotta pay something. And to be raking in $20K+ free and clear while suckling at the public teat is right out.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[narcberry]

So if my neighbor is cheating on his taxes, why should the government have my transaction records for ebay?

It would be no different than reading everyone's e-mails because they're "sure" someone is a terrorist.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Amouth]

Not true - in the case of the 20k it is report-able income and the 25k value of the car is the lost value showing 5k in losses for the year meaning you wouldn't pay any taxes on the 20k because you didn't actually make money.

Here int he US if you have contractors or deal with people the company is supposed to send you a 1099 if they paid you X amount as they also will write off X amount as expenses so they don't pay taxes on it but rather you do.

In this case it would make sense for Ebay to be reporting 1099's (i know this is AU and not US but use the ideas not the names) and the individual would file them with their taxes just like anyone else.

I understand and agree with what they are trying to do, my bet is there is a better way of doing it via the existing tax laws than to make new laws for specialty cases.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Lisias]

Are you so pro-government that you approve normal citizens doing their (government) job at their (citizens) expense?

It's up to the government to be able to correctly tax their citizens.

Your approach is like "you own me heavy money, unless you take the burden of proving you don't".

Re:I don't see the outrage

[cpu6502]

I am not obligated to pay California or any other foreign tax, because I don't live there and do not have representation in their government to make my voice heard. (i.e. That I think 9% tax is nuts.) I only have to pay tax to the governments where I have representation.

When I ordered some stuff from the UK, the store tried to scam me into paying VAT. Naturally I refused. I have no voice in the Parliament, and therefore have no reason to pay them a tax.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[WoodstockJeff]

"Here in the U.S. they should be forced into at least filing a Form 1099 or something, getting the state taxes comes back to the same problem as sales tax."

But... eBay isn't GIVING the seller any money. They are CHARGING the seller for their service. Why should they file any tax forms on the seller? It is the buyer that would, potentially, issue the tax document, not eBay.

And how can they say the winning bid amount was the final sale amount, anyway? Let's say I put in a winning bid of $600 on a used Widget. I arrive at the seller's location with $600 in hand... And the Widget is damaged in a way that wasn't known/documented. The seller and I agree to a reduced price of $450. Or, I discover that he has a complete set of the accessories for said Widget, and buy $1200 worth of stuff from him, in addition to the Widget. eBay doesn't know any of that.

Even neglecting the privacy issues, it's a flawed concept.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

People have made this argument, and the courts have soundly rejected it. Otherwise every employer would save all the compliance and reporting costs related to reporting salaries and bonuses to IRS. All businesses would like to take the stand, "I would not maintain any records and would not provide anything till you get a court warrant". It is the duty of every citizen to cooperate with the government to catch the tax dodgers and free loaders.

You are probably a free loader and hate the ability of the government to find evidence of your tax dodging.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[QuasiSteve]

I didn't sell anywhere near $20,000 last year... more like $5000. But that's NOT really profit. The $5000 of used games/books/video originally cost me ~$7000 to acquire. So the net profit is negative income (a loss).

And if you tried to insure them, would their insured worth be $7,000?
If you didn't sell them, could you use them as the equivalent of $7,000 to purchase other goods, pay bills, etc.?
If you lost them, would you save up of $7,000 in order to regain your existing current wealth?
If you had to buy them again in the condition you left them in, would it cost you $7,000?

I guess if your tax system allows such tax shenanigans, you should certainly exploit it.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[scot4875]

I'm a conservative with so many libertarian leanings I's switch if the LP wasn't overrun with Idiotarian Libertarians who seem to only care about being worse surrender monkeys than than Dems and legalizing weed.

Actually laughed out loud at this, and that's an extreme rarity. Thanks.

--Jeremy

Re:I don't see the outrage

[jmorris42]

> But... eBay isn't GIVING the seller any money. They are CHARGING the seller for their service.

There is a consignment store/flea market across the street from where I work. If you put stuff in there for them to sell you can bet it will get reported. At least in theory.... we all know reality often differs, especially in a down economy... it isn't as bad as Greece yet. Explain why should eBay be different? Especially when you consider that for all practical intents and purposes 'eBay' == eBay + Paypal. So they are bringing buyer and seller together, charging fees AND processing the exchange of money.

As for your specific objections, selling for a different price than what was finalized on eBay is a violation of eBay policy and voids your transaction protection. Making an additional sale doesn't involve eBay but is of course still a taxable transaction even if it is unreasonable for eBay to be involved in reporting it.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

No, really, please provide me the information that corroborates your wild accusations. Are there tax loopholes that large corporations are able to step through in order to avoid paying taxes? Sure, but to state that these same corps owe back taxes, and that someone like Warren Buffett owes a trillion in back taxes is just plain, pants on head, count to potato dumb.

So, like I said,

[citation needed]

PS: A decent citation, not some nutjob tinfoil-hat leftist commie hippie crap website that also claims 9/11 was an inside job. Keep links like that to yourself.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't sell anywhere near $20,000 last year... more like $5000. But that's NOT really profit. The $5000 of used games/books/video originally cost me ~$7000 to acquire. So the net profit is negative income (a loss).

I guess if your tax system allows such tax shenanigans, you should certainly exploit it.

It's not tax shenanigans. Inventory cost $7k, sold for $5k, it's a $2k loss, so obviously no tax paid on it. The revenue agency would probably want proof (or be able to ask for proof anytime in the next ~7 years) of the original price paid though.

A business can even get tax deductions over the life of an asset from Capital Depreciation. When the asset is finally sold, unless it's sold for more than the accountants estimated it would end up being worth again there's no tax.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[hackwrench]

If I insured such a thing, I'd get enough insurance to replace them new, which would probably be more than I paid the first time for such things.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Sir_Sri]

The catch would be that 20k in sales on ebay isn't 20k in taxable income. If you spent 19k to buy stuff you sold for 20k, and spent 500 dollars in shipping your taxable income is only 500 dollars (or at least, would be in some places).

But ya, the point is sound. You shouldn't be able to launder money through ebay, if you have enough ebay sales it starts becoming a commission/sales job, and needs to be reported as income. The problem is that you're self reporting the price you paid for things still (before reselling them), unless you bought them on ebay initially.

It might be that the 20k figure is too high or too low. I wouldn't be surprised if thats the point where they figure you've probably moved enough money that there's *some* taxable income there worth looking at.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[misexistentialist]

Shouldn't they just be auditing the people applying for welfare, rather than tracking the financial activity of the entire financial population?

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Sir_Sri]

Um... If you travel to california you are obliged to pay sales taxes in california. Whether you can vote there is completely irrelevant. Governments have no particular obligation to give anyone representation. Nor does paying taxes give you any guarantee of representation, (ask juveniles or anyone living in Washington D.C. if you're confused by this).

When you were doing business with a UK retailer you tried to scam them out of VAT tax. They *have* to pay VAT taxes on the stuff they bought and they add to the VAT at each step. You can file a claim with the *government* after if you are exempt from VAT, but the retailer is obliged by law to collect it, otherwise it comes out of their pocket. I don't know for sure about the UK but Ireland has some sort of VAT reduction thing for tourists where you can get some of the VAT you paid back.

Also, your one line assertion that 9% taxes are nuts is childishly foolish. Different areas tax in different ways. There's nothing particularly nuts about a 25% sales tax or a 1% sales tax. What matters is total government taxation, and who bears the burden.

VAT by the way isn't sales tax. It seem like it. But it isn't. It's a value added tax. At each step of the production process tax is added based on the value added at that step. Talk about an administrative nightmare. I'm not suggesting it's a good or efficient system (although it certainly has its advantages), but it's not a sales tax.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[TFAFalcon]

Are you prepared to supply the government with documents for every purchase and sale you make? Since that's what they'd need if they wanted to track the profit you make on these auctions.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Sir_Sri]

Except that everyone has to pay taxes. If you've even had 1 dollar in taxable income via ebay sales and didn't report it you're cheating on your taxes too. The government right now only cares if you did enough ebay sales that you have enough income for it to be worth looking into. But if they believe it worth the effort they could demand ebay turn over *all* transaction records and dig through those to figure out how much taxable income is there. That would seem like a nightmare of a problem though (because they wouldn't have records of expenses from ebay). 20k is a somewhat arbitrary crossover point where they figure its worth looking into.

Now australia might have laws (I'm not an aussie I have no idea) about sales of 'garage sale' type situations where any profits you might get are not considered income up to a point. But if you exceed that amount by one dollar you're obliged to report the dollar as income. There's no reason to treat ebay differently.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[jmorris42]

> Y'all should spend a couple of days living the life of someone on welfare.

Why would I do that? I havta work, millions on welfare depend on me. :) Seriously, it does piss me off when I'm in the checkout line in Walmart behind people buying food I can't afford (snow crab!?!) and they whip out the ol Louisiana Purchase card. I'm buying Sam's Choice and these clowns wouldn't dream of settling for a store brand. Because they don't have to.

And it isn't anything new. My first job was bagging groceries way back in the late '70s and it was just as bad then. Loading up the trunk/bed of new Lincolns, Caddies and F100 Pickups (as in temp plates) with stuff I certainly didn't get to eat growing up as poor but not on the dole. But I was certainly 'rich' enough to be 'paying my fair share' to help fund that bull crap according to my pay stub.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Grimbleton]

Oh no, criminals might get caught! What an issue!

Re:I don't see the outrage

[TFAFalcon]

But do you still expect California police to stop strangers from beating you up in the street before killing you when you visit the state?

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Grishnakh]

I'll reiterate my idea from another post above. If the government wants to do a fishing expedition for ONLY welfare cheats, and we want to keep them from fishing for lots of other info and harassing other people at the same time, it's easy to do. Have Ebay compile a list of records of all the people selling over $10k or $20k or whatever; each record has the person's name, ID number, etc., enough to make them uniquely identifiable. Make a cryptographic hash of every record. Then have the government do the same for all their welfare recipients. Then compare the hashes; this will identify people who are common to both groups; Ebay can then hand over the information for those people, without revealing anything else.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Hognoxious]

otherwise it would be helping criminals.

Yes, that would be unspeakable. And in Australia, of all places!

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Hognoxious]

Is the expression "bludging bastards" still in common use down there?

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Dexter Herbivore]

Is the expression "bludging bastards" still in common use down there?

Only by gutter journalists who like to create headlines rather than report them... oh, and ignorant dickheads. Seriously, like any country we have some fair dinkum idiots down here. :)

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Dexter Herbivore]

Are you so pro-government that you approve normal citizens doing their (government) job at their (citizens) expense?

It's up to the government to be able to correctly tax their citizens.

Your approach is like "you own me heavy money, unless you take the burden of proving you don't".

Unfortunately in Australia, that's the standard model. The citizen does the paperwork and the government audits at random and/or it warrants an audit.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[cpu6502]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

It's actually 1 billion not 1 trillion (oops). Still my point stands: The politicians let guys him & other megacorps go slide w/o consequences, but instead go after us who owe just 0.0001% as much. Why? Because the rich & corporations buy immunity.

Corporations that paid zero taxes:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/150387/2_3rds_of_us_corporations_pay_zero_federal_taxes%3A_us_uncut_movement_builds_to_make_them_pay_up

Re:I don't see the outrage

[cpu6502]

>>>Um... If you travel to california you are obliged to pay sales taxes in california.

God you're dense. Yes if I'm within the juris diction of a foreign government, I have to obey the laws. BUT I was talking about when I'm sitting at HOME, 3000 miles away on the other side of the continent, and selling stuff on Ebay (the topic at hand). I am not under any obligation to pay the California government a dime in tax on my sales. Or file a sales tax return with them. "No taxation without representation," to quote the Founders of this union. There should be no taxation by a foreign government that lies 3000 miles away, when I have no way to make my voice heard in their legislature.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[mcmonkey]

"Grimbleton" huh?

That's not the name on your birth certificate. What do you have to hide? Must be a criminal.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Sir_Sri]

Yes, and if you're buying from a UK business it is essentially the same as traveling there, buying the item and flying home. They aren't actually in your living room.

The moment you access their website you stepped into their jurisdiction the in the virtual space, just as setting foot into canada means you set foot in our jurisdiction, just as the moment you cross into another state you are now in their jurisdiction and have to pay their sales tax.

Also, your 'union' doesn't rule the world. Get over it. Governments have no obligation to provide representation, and can tax however the hell they feel like. If you don't like a governments rules, don't live there, don't travel there, and don't do business there. In other words, don't order online from europe because you are supposed to be charged VAT at 20 odd percent.

Do you think the product you were importing from the UK would somehow be exempt from import tariffs because you ordered it from within the US? Because if so you're completely out to lunch.

The only way the UK company could get out of charging you VAT is if there is a free trade agreement with the US (which there is) and they have a US subsidiary, so when you order an item they import it tax free to their US subsidiary, and the US subsidiary actually sells it to you. Then the company takes care of demanding a VAT refund from their own government. If the UK company doesn't have a US subsidiary then you're SOL.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[webheaded]

Why exactly do you think they would do this rather than simply sharing the info like he said? They're the government and they can pretty much do whatever they want with the info once they get it because no one is going to limit them. That's the kind of the point of stopping them from going on a fishing expedition in the first place. Harassment is all that will come from this. Plus it is just YOUR preference for ONLY welfare cheats and other people are more concerned about taxes or other government programs for all you know. You can't just tell the government "sure you can completely undermine someone's privacy BUT ONLY FOR THIS ONE THING, OKAY?" It seems pretty naive to me for you to even suggest this. When does that ever happen? Seriously...once they have the info, it is going everywhere and quite frankly they have no right to it in the first place without a warrant. That is the point of having a warrant system...so they can't just go out harassing people for no reason.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

His entire tone, maintaining accounts is doing government job at citizen's expense, government should collect taxes without any cooperation from any citizen, all compliance costs are punishment without proving guilt suggest he is probably a freeloader and a tax dodger.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Grishnakh]

I'm just pointing out one method by which you can limit how much info the government gets, just in case they can obtain some kind of court order giving them access to the information. If they did have a court order or law requiring Ebay to give them this info, there's no way Ebay can do so without knowing a lot of private info about the sellers, which Ebay has no right to. And Ebay handing over info on all their sellers gives the government access to a lot of private info that they also have no right to (as the presumed court order/law only gives them access to info on welfare recipients selling a lot of stuff on Ebay).

If welfare recipients are selling a large amount of stuff on Ebay, the government trying to get that info is not "harassing people for no reason". I don't see how a law requiring Ebay to share this information (or a law requiring any financial service company to share information about welfare recipients using their services) is a problem. Don't like it? Simple: don't get on welfare and take taxpayer money for doing nothing. However, there's a slippery slope there; the government shouldn't have access to all kinds of peoples' private info just because the govt wants to find welfare cheats. Using a cryptographic system like I outlined would preserve that privacy and keep the government from getting more info than it has a right to.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[bev_tech_rob]

This doesn't appear to be an issue about taxes...it is about someone receiving govt assistance while making undeclared money on the side and not reporting that income, therefore possibly making them ineligible for further govt. assistance. That would be like someone here in the States drawing unemployment compensation, but making $50,000 a year selling stuff on the side. If that is the case for that person, they shouldn't be drawing govt. assistance since they have an income..

Re:I don't see the outrage

[GumphMaster]

The idea is good but I think you are grossly overestimating the technical understanding of the government party :(

Re:I don't see the outrage

[dunkelfalke]

Not quite. One really doesn't have to pay VAT for exports to outside of EU. So if an American orders something from UK, there is no need to pay VAT (doesn't have to do anything with representation, though). They have to pay import taxes and duties though, if such apply.

Not charging the VAT, even if you don't need to, is a major hassle, though, leading to a lot of paperwork.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Grishnakh]

Yes, unfortunately this is probably way over the heads of the idiots in government.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[swillden]

A problem with your scheme is that it still gives too much information to whichever party gets the lists and does the comparisons.

e-Bay could take the list of welfare ID hashes and use it to identify all of their users who are on welfare, and then potentially misuse that data.

The government could take the list of e-Bay high-earner ID hashes and use it to identify all of its citizens who are e-Bay high earners, not just welfare recipients.

One solution is to have both give their lists to a third party, who would identify the intersection and return that to the government. But that gives the third party a list of ID hashes which could be used to identify people who are in either set (and which set(s) they're in). But if e-Bay and the government agree on a key and generated keyed hashes, the third party (who doesn't have the key) can only identify intersections, and cannot do its own hashing of personal data to match that to people.

As an added backstop against disclosure of the key to the third party, rather than building and sending a list, e-Bay could generate a Bloom filter of the keyed hashes, and deliver the filter data to the third party, who could then test each government-provided hash against the filter and return the list of positives. The false positive rate would need to be set low enough that a positive constitutes probable cause for a warrant, which could then be served to e-Bay to retrieve the person's information in the proper way.

It might even be possible to flip the sense of the test so that Bloom errors become false negatives rather than false positives. This would ensure that everyone who is matched is actually in the intersection of the two sets, while allowing some in the intersection to "get away". In fact, if this could be done (I need to think about it), you could actually set the false negative rate to be very high, which reveals even less information to the third party and to the government, but would still provide a sufficiently high probability of discovery (and prosecution) that welfare recipients would take care to properly disclose their e-Bay earnings.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[swillden]

Why exactly do you think they would do this rather than simply sharing the info like he said?

Because privacy advocates will scream bloody murder about just sharing the lists. The only check on government action is the voice of the people, but if the people are loud enough, it can work.

They're the government and they can pretty much do whatever they want with the info once they get it because no one is going to limit them.

Which is exactly why it makes sense to employ a cryptographic protocol so they can find the e-Bay high-earning welfare recipients but cannot get any other information out of it. To use math to make it impossible for them to use the data in any way beyond the stated purpose. That still leaves open the question of whether or not allowing the data to be used for the stated purpose is a good idea (personally, I think you give up some privacy in exchange for welfare money, so I'm not opposed), but it at least closes off concerns about the government using the data for other things.

You can't just tell the government "sure you can completely undermine someone's privacy BUT ONLY FOR THIS ONE THING, OKAY?"

You can if you can ensure that they don't have the ability to undermine the privacy for other things.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[thegarbz]

They do, and they typically find gross cases of fraud. This is just one of the methods used. Cross check a list of high volume second hand sellers with a list of welfare cases is by far easier than doing complicated checks on their bank balances, especially when that bank is Paypal.

As someone who watches ... acquaintances get handed the world on a silver platter while she sits on her fat arse at home while I work 9-5 I say anything that gets rid of bogus welfare claims is a bonus. Actually I lied, she doesn't sit at home all day. Recently she just took an overseas trip, not bad for someone who hasn't worked in 5 years and regularly bitches to centrelink that she can't afford to drive her kid to daycare.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[AHuxley]

When your on welfare in Australia, the forms you sign are short and crystal clear.
Cash movements, transactions, shares, cash gifts, new person in your life, changes to education - tell them and all is fine (within set limits) or payments are adjusted.
You also give the Australian federal gov the right to look into their databases for your name.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Sussurros]

Don't forget GST (goods and services tax) of 10% which all businesses have to pay and small sellers on eBay don't. I believe that $20,000 per year in gross sales is in fact a very good figure at which eBay sellers should start having to pay GST and keep the accounting that necessarily acompanies it. My only worry is that selling a caravan or car could seriously distort otherwise moderate amounts.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[chrismcb]

That is the way taxes work. Most companies depreciate their assets over time. So they can essentially take the loss as they use the item, instead of when they sell the item. It doesn't matter how much the item is worth. It matters how much you paid for it, and how much you sell it for. At least that is how it works in the US. Dunno about Down Under

Re:I don't see the outrage

[chrismcb]

If your neighbor is cheating on his taxes, when should the government have your work records?

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Grishnakh]

I see no problem with that; they should even have access to look at your bank accounts whenever they want. If you're going to be on the public dole, the public should be able to examine your life closely.

But that doesn't mean they should have access to everyone's info on a big site like Ebay (or any site for that matter). That's why my crypto method I think is a good idea (combined with someone else's additions in another post here of having a 3rd party do the matching, etc.).

Re:I don't see the outrage

[cpu6502]

I think the government should stop hassling the little people and going after the Megacorps/banks that owe billions or even trillions in backtaxes. (But of course the government never does that, because the politicians are corporatists... bought and paid for. The politicians only go after the citizens, not the real billion-dollar thieves.)

Example: Warren Buffett. He owes over a trillion in taxes over the last decade, but do we see President Obama going after him? No. They act like best friends and Obama praises Buffett for creating the "Buffett rule" to be passed in Congress.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Grimbleton]

What? What does that have to do with anything I said?

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Kalriath]

Wow. You're lucky they don't look across the ditch at Work and Income New Zealand. Signing up for a benefit requires an accounting of any assets you own, and they may require you to sell any liquid assets prior to giving you a benefit (they don't consider a house a liquid asset though, but second cars may be fair game).

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Kalriath]

Perhaps you should tell the US Government that then, since as a phone application developer to get paid to me in NZ, I am required to prove to the US Government that I am not a US citizen, and get an ITIN or EIN from the IRS and file returns each year to the IRS, and then I have to file returns with my own government via the IRD and pay taxes on that.

Of course I can't complain to your government about it because I have no voice there or voter rights.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Kalriath]

Except that apart from the name, there is no detail that both eBay and the government are guaranteed to both have, and names are the one attribute you can guarantee huge collision rates with. Like in NZ, there is no "ID number" that you can match. You have a tax number, but you aren't required to give that to eBay for obvious reasons. So how exactly are they going to do it without then ending up requesting the detailed records for metric fucktons of individuals who aren't on welfare?

Far simpler is to simply request the details of all individuals making over $20K. All of the resulting group are either on welfare and rorting the system, or are required to file GST returns and are either doing so in which case their details are discarded or are not doing so and are rorting another system. Were I an Australian taxpayer I would fully support such a move.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[HJED]

Well then you would be running a buisness. In Australia all buisness are required to register with the government and provide detailed accounts for tax purposes. You can then draw an income from your buisness which you declare to as income on your tax as well.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[HJED]

Don't know the exact value, but there is a level of income for buisnesses below which you aren't required to pay GST. I think it might be slightly higer though.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[HJED]

And this is relevant to the conversation how? This information, which would probably only be about Australia ebay sellers (the nature of ebay makes it hard to lie about your location) and only be used to tax/cut off wealthare payments to the same Aussies.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[rtb61]

Seems rather clumsy with a Goods and Services tax requirements, Centrelink simply needs to keep track of that. The Tax Department can simply set up a team to specifically monitor online auctions to ensure GST is being paid, EBay has zero rights to privacy with regards to ensuring payment of appropriate taxes. It will be fairly easy to track lack of GST payments (very likely) or GST payments and link that to social welfare payment fraud and Centrelink already has ties to the taxation department. Paypal and any other online payment schemes also need to be tracked, Paypal also has no right to privacy when it comes to payment of appropriate taxes.

Easiest way to stitch them up and force compliance, when in doubt with regards to paying Goods and Services taxes, make the enabler to Goods and Services tax avoidance schemes pay the tax or point the finger at whom should be paying the tax. Corporate greed will soon have those executives naming and shaming, bless their greedy little hearts.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, I wasn't sure about the ID number bit, and you're right, name alone isn't unique enough at all. What about name + address? How many John Smiths can there be living at 123 Whatever Rd, Anytown NSW 1234? Obviously, if they use a different address on Ebay/Paypal then the one the government mails their welfare check to, they won't be found, but how likely is that (unless they're specifically planning to avoid this dragnet this way)?

Far simpler is to simply request the details of all individuals making over $20K. All of the resulting group are either on welfare and rorting the system

Why not simply require the details of ALL individuals, no matter how much they're making? And require them ALL to file tax forms on their Ebay sales?

BTW, how do you plan to handle it when someone sells something used on Ebay, like a book (or a car), and can't produce documentation showing how much they originally paid for it? Are they supposed to pay income tax on the whole thing?

Re:I don't see the outrage

[b4dc0d3r]

I'm not going to claim as AC did that this was intentional. But the company owes this money, not Buffett. And they have publically stated that they owe money, and intend to pay it.

It is not uncommon for companies to re-state earnings. It starts with an announcement in their quarterly or annual report, which is where this was "openly admitted." This is standard business practice, usually when a company realizes that some tax advisor was wrong about how to move things around.

They skip that loophole, re-calculate, try to find another way around it, and then when all else fails announce they will restate their earnings, or taxes, or whatever.

This type of thing is routine, if you follow business news. The only reason it is newsworthy is because the company's founder is on record saying what seems like the opposite position.

But here's how it boils down. BH said they owed this much tax, realized it was actually more, and paid it. Buffett says he should owe more, but only pays what he's required to. Both cases meet the minimum tax liability and no more. And Buffett's point isn't that *he* pays very little tax, it's that a whole class of people pay little tax. He wants the bar raised for everyone in his class, generating piles of revenue, instead of his own voluntary donation which will barely make a dent.

Your point does not stand, because the company followed the legal requirements in finding and reporting underpayments. There is no immunity. In fact, the IRS has for the last several years focused on higher earners, to ensure their taxes are calculated correctly. Return on investment is the key. Auditing someone who makes $35k will probably not turn up much, but a minor variance in a $250k earner might get several thousand dollars.

Let me guess, you've been audited and didn't like it? I hope that's the reason, otherwise you are just swallowing all the bias you are being spoon-fed without any critical thinking skills.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Occams]

Obviously it is a fishing expedition, It is efficient because this way they can avoid the expensive and time consuming preliminary investigation that could lead to getting a warrant on a particular person. I'm fine with that, We need to catch as many of these welfare cheats as quickly as we can.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Meski]

If they want to stop doing business in a country, they have that right. If you do business in a country, you obey its laws.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Meski]

We aren't all convicts. :)

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Meski]

IIRC, overseas online transactions 1k don't get caught by GST. And don't the local retailers squawk about that!

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Meski]

Fair's fair. They do after all deposit funds to a bank account without due process.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Meski]

That would not matter to SS. If you gift a car to someone and you're receiving SS, then you have to report that. Taking a loss is a variation on that.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Meski]

Which is why they employ people that do understand it.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Meski]

It's moving assets, which is something you do need to be reporting if you receive welfare (here)

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Meski]

OTOH, we have an AC arguing against someone with a name...

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Grishnakh]

Citation needed.

I don't see a whole lot of evidence of the people in government employing people who understand complex issues.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Meski]

Would a classified job ad do for your citation? Goto one of the websites and look at the requirements they list before an interview, even. (I am not a government employee, but I concede I live in Canberra, and communicate with a lot of quite computer literate people in the government)

Re:I don't see the outrage

[rtb61]

The laws must have changed because I had to pay GST to have DVD's from Amazon US released from bond warehouse prior to completion of delivery in Adelaide. So perhaps in your case they might have missed the 'purchase' and simply taken it as a personal delivery and only applied GST beyond a perceived $1000 dollar value, either the laws changed or 'umm' you cheated the tax man.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Meski]

Hmm, where've you been?

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2010/12/productivity-commission-to-examine-1000-gst-free-threshold/ (just the top URL of many)

"Goods ordered online from overseas aren’t subject to GST if the total order value is less than $1,000. That rule could change depending on the outcome of a newly-announced Productivity Commission investigation into retailing in Australia."



But it seems unlikely, given it will cost more to collect than it will make.

Re:I don't see the outrage

[Grishnakh]

Hmm, maybe that's the difference. You're in Australia, and I'm in America. The government here is totally incompetent (much like the people).

Re:I don't see the outrage

[cpu6502]

Citation - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

It's actually 1 billion not 1 trillion (oops). Still my point stands: The politicians let guys like Buffett, his company, and CEOs go slide w/o consequences. BUT if one of us owes money they hit us hard, even when we owe just 0.0001% as much as the Big dogs owe. Why? Because the rich & corporations buy immunity from politicians via donations.

Corporations that paid zero taxes:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/150387/2_3rds_of_us_corporations_pay_zero_federal_taxes%3A_us_uncut_movement_builds_to_make_them_pay_up

Ill bite

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Ill bite

[GumphMaster]

You can take payment on eBay by means other than PayPal in Australia; our competition laws saw to that. Cheques are essentially dead as a payment type but direct deposit is alive and well. Our laws do not, however, mandate that eBay should make that as easy as using their triple-dipping PayPal service.

"Sold More Than $20,000 worth" != Made $20,000

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Re:"Sold More Than $20,000 worth" != Made $20,000

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

you do that on the tax forums.

Re:"Sold More Than $20,000 worth" != Made $20,000

[Sir_Sri]

ya, 20k is probably the point where the government has decided you're doing enough business that this counts as business and needs to be treated as such. Whether 20k is arbitrary or calculated in some way I don't know though.

Re:"Sold More Than $20,000 worth" != Made $20,000

[thegarbz]

Here's a fact, if you're running a business without declaring it to centrelink you're in the shit.

Hell people get in the shit for far less things like living with someone. One day you get married and Centrelink comes back and says Oh you were living with this person while you were a student, lets just assume you were actually a defacto couple, and your partner had income, please repay...

I don't think anyone's stupid enough to think that centrelink would just look at the gross goods sold and cut people's payments because of this. They actually do this every year, and have done every year for a long time. It hasn't been an outrage previously. This is just par for the course.

wow, common sense!

[ganjadude]

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?

Re:wow, common sense!

[medv4380]

For the same reason your bank reports to the IRS any transaction over 10,000

Re:wow, common sense!

[ganjadude]

the bank != ebay I dont give ebay my money to hold onto and act as my keeper. I pay ebay for a service, It is up to me to do the right thing and thats how it should be. It is beyond unreasonable to expect ebay to be able to do what is being asked here, and will obviously be asked from other governments if they say yes without driving up their cost, and in turn driving up our fees.

Re:wow, common sense!

[Cimexus]

No but Paypal (owned by Ebay and used for most Ebay transactions) IS legally a bank in most countries, including Australia...

Re:wow, common sense!

[Cimexus]

Actually I shouldn't have blurted that out ... I was sure I had read they were governed by banking regulations in Australia, but I can't find a cite for that right now. I did confirm though that:

- It's NOT considered a bank in the US; and
- It IS considered a bank in most European countries.

Australia tends to be more EUish than USish when it comes to banking regulations, but I can't find anything definitive on this either way. Hmmm...

Re:wow, common sense!

[ganjadude]

ok, than why are they not going after paypal for transaction history instead of ebay for the top sellers history? wouldnt going after paypal for transaction history be a little bit more on the most people will be ok with it because it is a bank? not abusing a private company to spend money of its own to do the work that generally a warrant is needed to obtain?

Re:wow, common sense!

[ganjadude]

Hmm, what are you hiding?

says the AC

I make financial transactions with burger king when i buy a burger, should burger king be required to report the people who buy more than 100 burgers a year?

Re:wow, common sense!

[Lisias]

Hmm, what are you hiding?

My privacy.

Re:wow, common sense!

[Cryacin]

Your life insurance and TPD company would be most interested!

Re:wow, common sense!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

You walk into a car dealership and try to buy a car costing over $10000 by paying cash. The feds would be on to you before you leave the lot. The car dealerships and many other businesses are required to report any transaction more than a threshold. How did the feds get Eliot Spitzer?

Re:wow, common sense!

[scot4875]

now remember that ebay is in probably 95% of the countries on the planet.

So? Are you implying that because a corporation is multinational, they shouldn't have to comply with each individual country's (in this case, proposed) legislation because it's difficult?

Why should ebay do the polices job in over 200 countries?

For the same reason my contract employers have to fill out IRS paperwork when they pay me.

-Jeremy

Re:wow, common sense!

[scot4875]

I guess my privacy is also being invaded when my employer sends my W2 into the IRS. Hasn't ever bothered me much though.

The simple fact of the matter is that there's some shit you have to put up with when you live in a civilized society. Giving details of your finances to the government is one such thing. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me, because without the government, there'd be no transactions in dollars to report.

--Jeremy

Re:wow, common sense!

[Eponymous Coward]

I bought a $12,000 car with cash and no feds were ever directly involved. I had to sign a couple of forms and that's about it, one of which was an acknowledgement that the transaction was being reported.

Re:wow, common sense!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Very good. But the law requires the businesses to make you fill a form and make them report the transaction. Nothing more burdensome is asked for in the e-bay case. Why is there an expectation of privacy there?

Re:wow, common sense!

[Eponymous Coward]

Because when I buy a car from a dealership, I'm paying them more than $10,000. When I pay for eBay's auction service, it costs much less than that. If eBay were to start selling cars rather than just providing a marketplace, then they would have to report large transactions too.

Imagine a car dealership in a shopping mall (some of these do exist). Part of the lease agreement is that the mall management gets some fraction of the stores revenue. Asking eBay to report large transactions is a little like asking the mall management to report large transactions through one of their tenants.

Re:wow, common sense!

[Dexter Herbivore]

It's incredibly difficult to become a 'bank' in Australia due to the way our laws are structured. Most financial institutions are treated as credit unions or financial services funds.

Re:wow, common sense!

[ganjadude]

ebay != employer

Re:wow, common sense!

[thegarbz]

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?

You're right. Why should companies report payments made to employees, why should banks report interest made to employees, why should anyone report anything financial to the government about other people?

Oh that's right to prevent tax and welfare fraud which has the effect of driving the tax rate up for those who do the right thing.

This is not a case of suspecting anyone, it's no more complicated than the tax department asking for the income payments to staff. It goes to the government, the government determines if it exceeds the boundary at which someone is considered to be running a business, and if so they get a closer look if they are on welfare.

Also running a business does not preclude you from being on welfare. I did it throughout uni. I ran a small business with turnover over $20k but I had a pissy little income. I declared it on my tax, I declared it with centrelink, and I kept receiving my fortnightly youth allowance. I didn't actually receive welfare at Christmas but then I had a big burst of income over the holiday season so I had no delusions that I should receive welfare for it.

Re:wow, common sense!

[Kalriath]

Paypal in the Asia-Pacific region is PayPal Singapore Pte Ltd, which apparently "does not need to comply with regulations of the monetary authority of Singapore". so we have the same unregulated bullshit as the US does.

Re:wow, common sense!

[Kalriath]

For what it's worth, most auctioneers are required to keep records and report them. I don't see why eBay should be treated any differently than a physical auction house in this respect.

Income reporting is not violation of privacy.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

Re:Income reporting is not violation of privacy.

[Eponymous Coward]

When you sell something through eBay, you don't get paid by eBay, you are paid by the seller. In fact, you pay eBay.

Re:Income reporting is not violation of privacy.

[webheaded]

When you work for an employer, you are signing up to be working for that employer. When you sell things on eBay, there are various reasons you might be doing so and various scenarios in which it is none of the government's business. Selling something on eBay is not the same as getting a job at McDonalds or working at the bank. The mere fact that you've sold something on eBay should not put you on some government list. That's absurd. You aren't WORKING for eBay (they DO report that)...you are just using it. Should they start searching and calling everyone that puts a classified ad in the newspaper? Everyone that puts an ad on Craigslist? Where exactly does this end?

Re:Income reporting is not violation of privacy.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

USA all employers become de-facto uwilling agents of the IRS, since the employers are forced to collect and report data, as well as collect money and transfer them directly to the government without any judicial review?

This is precisely I am talking about. Courts have ruled that it is not undue burden. Collecting taxes is essential for the functioning of the government. You can argue about the quantum of tax, but that government has the authority to collect taxes. Government can expect reasonable levels of cooperation from all entities. Technically the government can institute draft again and put your life in peril. That is the power granted to the government by our constitution as declared by our courts.

What really surprises me is why you are willing to act so much against your own self interests? It is in your self interest to make sure no body dodges taxes. When tax dodging is socially acceptable, (you are making it socially acceptable) it becomes widespread. When tax dodging is widespread governments collapse, and take down with them all the protections afforded to you by the constitution. Once the government falls, you will be at the mercy of the local strong man.

You look at all the presently law abiding peaceful citizens, and you look at your bushmaster 450 and decide, yeah, I don't need government, I can take care of myself. What you fail to see is the whole gang of people who will move in with AK 47s and kill you before you bat an eye-lid. You will probably last me 15 seconds longer than me in Somalia or Iraq. Is that enough for you?

Re:Income reporting is not violation of privacy.

[thegarbz]

When you transfer money to someone through the bank you don't get paid by anyone either. Yet your bank balance is reported to the federal government for taxation purposes.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, simply running a business does not preclude you from welfare payments. This is just a method that the government use EVERY YEAR to identify people who are committing welfare fraud by not declaring business income.

Re:Income reporting is not violation of privacy.

[Eponymous Coward]

Banks are subject to different regulation than auction houses. If they want eBay to report on the auctions going through their system, the government should make the rules explicit in law.

Re:Income reporting is not violation of privacy.

[thegarbz]

I'm sure they will the first time ebay refuses to hand over this info.

Re:Income reporting is not violation of privacy.

[roman_mir]

Courts have ruled that it is not undue burden.

- and we have to agree with the corrupt government and court systems?

government has the authority to collect taxes.

- read the comment I referred to, income taxes are unconstitutional, are illegal and are collected illegally and in fact the gov't is doing it without even getting courts to say a number of things on very important issues there.

Government can expect reasonable levels of cooperation from all entities.

- not governments that are illegitimate, and the federal gov't is illegitimate, it broke the contract, which is what the ratified Constitution is.

Technically the government can institute draft again and put your life in peril.

- which only can be Constitutional IF the Congress declares a war, which hasn't been done since WWII. But the gov't doesn't have the absolute right to conscript either, only if the nation faces mortal threat.

why you are willing to act so much against your own self interests?

- I have never done that.

It is in your self interest to make sure no body dodges taxes.

- false. It's in my best interest if everybody stopped paying all taxes immediately and put the gov't out of business so that the people would be able to run their lives again and got rid of this corrupt system. Only freedom creates wealth and I am always interested in my own wealth and my own wealth depends on the economy growing and doing well.

Gov't spending destroys the economy, it creates fake money and thus creates inflation, destroys savings and investments and opportunities for legitimate businesses, it crowds out the credit, it distorts prices, it creates malinvestments, it bails out failures with tax money, it creates class envy where there shouldn't be none, it promotes hatred towards minorities, it spends on projects that people don't need but that benefit some special interests, this includes the military.

Gov't is the supreme enemy number 1 of all self interested individuals.

and take down with them all the protections afforded to you by the constitution.

- the gov't has long ago abandoned the Constitution and is now the ultimate force that destroys the liberties, freedoms and the economy, not the other way around.

The people who are truly dangerous are not anybody in the streets with AK47, they are government agents all around.

Get a warrant

[Novogrudok]

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.

Re:Get a warrant

[thegarbz]

My opinion is that anybody who has a turnover of $20K a year on eBay should mention this on their tax returns.

If you made that much turnover on ebay chances are you're actually legally obliged to mention it on your tax return.

Re:Cart Meet Horse

[ganjadude]

except you are paying ebay, ebay isnt paying you, therefore the "ebay is the employeer" aspect shouldnt hold up although IANAL

Income reporting

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

Re:Income reporting

[Lisias]

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.

As Eduardo Saverin did?

Re:Income reporting

[Eponymous Coward]

When you sell something through eBay, you don't get paid by eBay, you have to pay eBay.

Dear Centerlink

[sidevans]

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

Re:Dear Centerlink

[sidevans]

I thought the government was actually listening to me for a bit there, then I realised (realized) it was a bad joke :(

Seems like a PayPal problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Seems like a PayPal problem...

[ColaMan]

This is a legal requirement of operating as a bank in Australia.

You are not required to give a bank or any other entity your TFN. But the consequence of that is that they will tax any interest/earnings at the highest tax rate.

So either way, taxman wins.

US started tracking big sellers in 2011

[peter303]

[Internet] companies have to issue a 1099-K for people sell 200 transactions or over $20,000.

Re:Jump on board United States

[Cimexus]

Unfortunately the real cheats will simply open multiple Ebay accounts and make sure they only sell $19,999 or less on each one per financial year ;)

Re:Jump on board United States

[Lisias]

You right.

For every complex problem, there's a solution that is simple. AND WRONG.

Brazil's government is happy on finding simple solutions for taxing. And almost every one of them just hits the honest citizen, because the dishonest ones already came with a (simple!) workaround.

Taxes in Brazil is paid only for the honest citizens - the government just can't reach the dishonest ones.

Re:Why not provide eBay the addresses?

[SecurityGuy]

Wait, did you really just say that giving eBay, a private multinational company, the names and addresses of Australian welfare recipients doesn't infringe privacy? Imagine you're an Australian welfare recipient who doesn't even use eBay. Do you still think your statement is true?

Non-Australians take note

[Dexter Herbivore]

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.

Re:Non-Australians take note

[Sussurros]

I'm one of the people affected by this and I'm keeping my sales deliberately just below $20,000 this financial year (which ends in two weeks). I was advised months ago that this was requested specifically for tax purposes. Centrelink and welfare was never mentioned at all until now and the ATO (tax office) was.

STFU cross-referencing is not invasion of privacy!

[uslurper]

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.

Re:Government Money

[Barny]

Yup, when I went onto sickness allowance, I wasn't going to get paid for two months because I had $6k in the bank.

When you sign up for your benefits (be they pension, as I am now on, or unemployment), you give Centerlink the right to do checks and searches in your name.

The really interesting stuff happens once they are caught. Centerlink have the right to access your bank account, if you have 'significant' savings, and remove said savings if you owe them money.

Re:Why not provide eBay the addresses?

[Barny]

Applying for welfare, you give Centerlink permission to do such checks.

As someone on a disability pension, I would like to cheer Centerlink on in this case, the more arseholes who are cheating the system that get caught, the more they can spare for everyone else.

Re:Cart Meet Horse

[Hognoxious]

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.

It's an invasion of privacy to walk down the street and look at somebody's house and car?

Its a big problem

[MichaelSmith]

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.

Re:Jump on board United States

[thegarbz]

And those people will likely be caught through other means. Ebay doesn't really do anonymous cash transactions, so at some point your bank balances will be reported to the government.

Re:Jump on board United States

[Sussurros]

I have three eBay accounts and I sell on two of them. I was very startled when one eBay employee casually mentioned my other eBay account when I rang about my first account. EBay keeps track of people rather than accounts and they are well aware of who has multiple accounts and who doesn't. Not sure if they're aware of proxies though.

If you sell over $20,000 across two accounts neither of which reaches that $20,000, you can be sure that eBay will add the total sales for that seller to judge what they've sold.

GST doesn't work that way.

[csirac]

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

Re:GST doesn't work that way.

[Hognoxious]

I think he's referring to income tax, i.e. the "taxing the money twice" fallacy.

As in why the pub owner should pay tax on his income because the carpenter who drinks there already paid tax on his. But hang on, why should the carpenter pay tax? The accountant who hired him to fix his shelves already paid tax on the fees he earned. From doing the books for the pub owner...

Re:GST doesn't work that way.

[csirac]

I doubt he's referring to income tax - "every time money changes hands" must surely be a reference to the GST.

But even if we are talking about income tax, I find it a strange complaint; I guess there are countries out there who don't have an income tax, but I'm not sure who they are. And surely things like the medicare levy and friends are a more blatant (second, third, fourth...) slug pretending to be something more noble than they really are ("It's not a tax hike, it's a levy!" fallacy).

If I had the energy to get upset about the tax system, it would be towards the double-dipping and hidden fees involved with saving and accessing and using retirement funds (and I'm ~40 years from retirement). So for a country who is trying to make retirement pensions a thing of the past, government sure does send mixed signals there by having your cake and eating the baking paper too.

Re:You are all stupid - every post in this thread.

[Kalriath]

Erm, Austrailian banks didn't get giant government handouts. So I can't see how that's even slightly relevant.

A basic income for all is a better idea

[Paul Fernhout]

"... 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