Saturday, November 30, 2024

X trying to block transfer of platform’s InfoWars accounts to the Onion


Social network says it must give permission for accounts to be sold or transferred after sale of rightwing InfoWars



Peter Handke Q & A


       Nobel laureate Peter Handke (On a Dark Night I Left my Silent House, etc.) was awarded the Großes Goldene Ehrenzeichen des Landes Steiermark mit dem Stern (the 'Great Golden Badge of Honor of the State of Styria with the Star' (with the star !) -- see, for example, the ORF report -- and in the local Kleine Zeitung editor in chief Hubert Patterer has a (German) Q & A with him in which he reminisces about his years in Graz.
       He amusingly admits to being something of a dandy -- and recounts being taken to a Beatles concert around 1966 and getting John Lennon to sign a copy of In His Own Write
       He was also a student in Graz -- studying law, and so Patterer asked him:
Wären Sie ein guter Anwalt geworden, wie Schirach ?

Ich glaube nicht. Ich glaube, ich wäre ein Star-Anwalt geworden, aber nicht im guten Sinn.

[Would you have become a good lawyer, like Schirach ?

I don't think so. I think I would have become a star lawyer, but not in a good way.]


     Richard Flanagan Q & A


       At The Guardian Anthony Cummins has a Q & A with Richard Flanagan: ‘I’m not sure that I will write again’
       Among his responses:
Do you think you’ll go back to writing novels of plot and character ?

I am not sure if I will write again. Whatever impelled me for so long has left, for now at least. Perhaps I’m just happy to be in the company of friends and family.
       Always good to hear when a writer doesn't force the issue -- as far, far too many do.

       Several of Flanagan's books are under review at the complete review -- e.g. Gould's Book of Fish -- but I haven't seen Question 7 yet.

Why humans feel the need to feast together

Yarra club peppered with wedding anniversaries and 105 birthday 🎈 



Footprints in Kenya ‘show distant relatives of modern humans coexisted’ Guardian 


For thousands of years, humans have come together in small groups to feast on food. Why is it important – and why do we still continue the tradition?

It's a peculiarly human universal: we like to sit down together for a good tuck-in. Meals out with friends, dinner parties, holiday get-togethers where we regularly overindulge – eating shared meals is so common that it's rarely remarked upon, except when the idea that it's not happening enough enjoys a societal vogue.

Panics about a decline in family dinners, for instance, regularly sweep through headlines. There is some evidence that such concerns are not a modern trend and may be at least a 100 years old. Eating together, all this suggests, is not only common, but somehow deeply powerful. But why?

 Why humans feel the need to feast together


    NYTBR 100 Notable Books of 2024


       The New York Times Book Review has released its list of their 100 Notable Books of 2024 (presumably paywalled).
       As best I can tell, a mere four of the books are works in translation (there were eight last year).. 
       Four of the titles from the 2023 list were under review at the complete review at the time of its release; this year I managed a mere two:
  1. “The most fulfilled people I know tend to have two traits. They’re insatiably curious… And they seem to exist in a state of perpetual, self-inflicted unhappiness” — Celine Nguyen on what she calls “divine discontent”. Some philosophers will relate. (via The Browser)
  2. A taxonomy of different theories of consciousness — by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, based in part on his many interviews of philosophers, cognitive scientists, and others for “Closer to Truth”
  3. “I’ve always been interested in those capacities that are understood to be uniquely human, such as morality or rationality” — the NYT interviews philosopher Susana Monsó (UNED) on how animals understand death
  4. “Five rules for phone banking as a philosopher” — Colin Marshall (Washington) shares his experiences and suggestions
  5. “Anything daring or original is filtered out, either through preemptive self-censorship or in the process itself. What is left is a bland broth of featureless, technocratic, box-ticking” — that’s a quote about architecture, but Alexander Douglas (St. Andrews) thinks it may apply to philosophy, too
  6. Can a version of the trolley problem motivate some voters? — Eddy Nahmias (Georgia State) thinks so
  7. “The chance that your vote will make a difference is large enough that, in many cases, it is really important to vote” — Avram Hiller (Portland State) explains why

Friday, November 29, 2024

The global giants costing Australia billions of dollars hit with a reality check

 The global giants costing Australia billions of dollars hit with a reality check

Millie Muroi Economics Writer November 29, 2024 

 
Earlier this week, a crucial piece of legislation made its way through parliament. It didn’t receive a lot of fanfare, but it’s a long-overdue tweak to our tax system.
You probably know companies such as Amazon, Apple and Microsoft. They’re multinational corporations that make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit every year, some of it right here in Australia – and probably from you as a customer.
Yet, the taxes they pay are not always proportional to the profit they’re pocketing. That’s something laws passed earlier this week seek to change. This week, the Australian government finally joined the growing army of countries – more than 135 so far – which have agreed to a global minimum tax of 15 per cent.

This week, the Australian government finally joined the growing army of countries – more than 135 so far – which have agreed to a global minimum tax of 15 per cent.CREDIT: MATT DAVIDSON Apple raked in an income of more than $12 billion in the 2022-23 period, according to the government’s transparency report. But it only paid 1 per cent tax on that income. How is that possible?
While the company tax rate in Australia is 30 per cent for most businesses with a turnover of $50 million or more, firms can reduce their taxable income and, therefore, the amount of tax they pay.
Some deductions are fair and reasonable: for example, claiming deductions for day-to-day business expenses including materials you need to supply a good or service. Other strategies are … questionable.
A business like Apple may not be breaking the law, but it can take advantage of different tax rates across the world. Australia’s company tax is among the highest in the world. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), we were only trumped by one country: Colombia, where companies paid about one-third of their income in tax. By contrast, countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates have much smaller company tax rates, making them attractive tax havens. Companies can sneakily shift their income to these countries or use cunning tactics to play the system to their favour.
Former economics professor turned Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury Dr Andrew Leigh says the share of multinational companies’ profits passing through tax havens has soared. Back in the 1970s, virtually no multinational profits went through tax havens, he says. “Now it’s up to about 40 per cent.”
Assistant Minister for Competition Andrew Leigh.
Assistant Minister for Competition Andrew Leigh.CREDIT: ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN
Stronger reporting requirements and wider availability of data have made it easier to spot when a company is skirting the rules, acting as a deterrent for businesses hoping to fly under the radar with sneaky tactics. And in 2017, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) found itself in a legal battle in the ongoing crusade against companies paying less tax through loopholes in the system, coming out on top against resource giant Chevron.
The Federal Court ruled against Chevron’s use of an arrangement called related-party finance – commonly used by multinationals to reduce the tax they have to pay in Australia.
It’s where the local entity of a multinational firm borrows funds from its offshore counterpart, which sets much higher interest rates than would usually be reasonable. That interest flows back to the offshore part of that company and allows the Australian branch to claim higher tax deductions because interest payments can be a tax-deductible expense.
Chevron’s Australian subsidiary had taken a $4 billion loan from its US parent company to develop Western Australian gas reserves. This added to the local subsidiary’s debt pile, but allowed it to sidestep Australia’s 30 per cent company tax rate, with those interest payments instead being taxed in the US where the corporate tax rate was lower. In 2017, Chevron had paid no company tax in five of the previous seven financial years.
The taxes the likes of Amazon, Apple and Microsoft pay are not always proportional to the profit they’re pocketing. The taxes the likes of Amazon, Apple and Microsoft pay are not always proportional to the profit they’re pocketing.CREDIT: DION GEORGOPOULOS
The Federal Court eventually ruled Chevron’s Australian subsidiary should not be allowed to claim interest on its borrowings from the rest of Chevron Group as if they were two standalone companies. In the 2022-23 period, Chevron paid more than $4 billion in tax.
However, Mark Zirnsak, secretariat for the Tax Justice Network, says that ruling has not closed the loophole entirely. Instead, he says Chevron got too greedy. “It’s still legal to claim the interest rate payment to yourself like Chevron did,” he says. “What the ATO contested was the rate of interest.”
Get it? If Chevron had just charged itself a standard rate of interest – similar to a bank – there would have been no issues. Related party finance is just one of the many tricks multinationals use to dodge the Aussie taxman.
There’s also something called “transfer pricing” which companies such as mining giant BHP have been penalised for. For years, BHP was selling Australian iron ore and coal to its Singapore operation. Now, there’s nothing wrong with that – except that BHP was then selling these commodities for much more from its Singapore marketing hub to other nations.
Since Singapore has a much lower corporate tax rate, BHP was reducing its tax bill despite the coal and iron ore originally coming from Australia. This week, the Australian government finally joined the growing army of countries – more than 135 so far – that have agreed to a global minimum tax of 15 per cent: A company with more than $1.2 billion in global revenue must pay at least 15 per cent tax across its global operations. Otherwise, the countries they’re doing business in can now get a bite of its untaxed profits.
This is supposed to deter companies from creating artificial structures in low or no-tax territories, such as the Cayman Islands, in a bid to avoid paying taxes in places where they actually do their business.
Chevron eventually abandoned its High Court appeal and cut a deal with the ATO on a dispute about related-party debt. Chevron eventually abandoned its High Court appeal and cut a deal with the ATO on a dispute about related-party debt. CREDIT: AP
It’s also supposed to prevent a “race to the bottom” where countries compete for the lowest company tax rates to attract businesses. How? Because if countries charge company tax rates below 15 per cent, then other countries can impose “top-up” taxes.
Australia, for example, can now apply a “top-up tax” on a multinational operating in Australia if that multinational pays less than a 15 per cent tax rate wherever it does business globally.
Zirnsak says the 15 per cent rate is too low but a positive change for now.
“The Biden administration would have liked to push it higher, and the Europeans were pushing for it to be lower, so at the end of the day, 15 per cent was a compromise,” he says.
“It’s no longer going to be a game where you can simply try and cheat the governments of the countries you’re actually doing business in through your artificial legal structures and working with governments that are happy to assist you in tax avoidance and profit.”
Leigh says the next step for the government is to crack down on tech giants, which have been more difficult to pin down. That’s partly because of the virtual nature of their services which has made taxing them properly an elusive exercise globally.
Of course, it’s a long-overdue change, and there’s lots left to do. But shifty multinational taxation tactics are being squeezed out.
It’s not just the big guys playing sneaky games. But as Leigh says, the local cafe you bought your coffee from today probably doesn’t pay an accountant exorbitant amounts to figure out how to minimise their tax.
“They don’t sit down at their weekly planning meeting and decide which country they want to pay tax in to minimise their tax.”

Put your usernames and passwords in your will, advises Japan’s government

Oculi Mundi is a digital heritage destination: the home of The Sunderland Collection of world maps, celestial maps, atlases, globes and books of knowledge. The project now includes a podcast, What’s your map, which starts with William Dalrymple’s exploration of an 18th century Jain cosmological map


Amazon workers across the globe are on strike for Black Friday Endgadget 


The Renters’ Republic Charlie Dulik 


Remember Nuzzel? A similar news-aggregating tool now exists for Bluesky


How Technology Has Reshaped The Ways We Talk To One Another

The kinds of speech that strike us as authentic, satisfying, and desirable change with time, and depend on our position in the world and on the conversations happening around us. - The New Yorker


Is it Over Now (Social Media Version)?

For many years now, Twitter has been our leading social media source of referrals of readers. But over the last year, LinkedIn has started to catch up, and over the last 90 days, LinkedIn referrals surpassed those from Twitter, and are now bringing us 1.65 times as many readers. 

Bluesky remains far behind, but is catching up as well. Over the last 365 days, Twitter referred 14 times more readers to The Scholarly Kitchenthan Bluesky. But in the last 30 days, that ratio has fallen to 6:1, and in the last week, it’s down to 4:1. We wondered whether we would start to reflect any different attitudes or practices now. 

How are Chefs using social media differently, and what are they seeing as platforms of choice or opportunity? From our different perches, what can we learn about how scholarly communications organizations are using different platforms?..”


Put your usernames and passwords in your will, advises Japan’s government

The Register: “Japan’s National Consumer Affairs Center on Wednesday suggested citizens start “digital end of life planning” and offered tips on how to do it. The Center’s somewhat maudlin advice is motivated by recent incidents in which citizens struggled to cancel subscriptions their loved ones signed up for before their demise, because they didn’t know their usernames or passwords. The resulting “digital legacy” can be unpleasant to resolve, the agency warns, so suggested four steps to simplify ensure our digital legacies aren’t complicated:

  • Ensuring family members can unlock your smartphone or computer in case of emergency;
  • Maintain a list of your subscriptions, user IDs and passwords;
  • Consider putting those details in a document intended to be made available when your life ends;
  • Use a service that allows you to designate someone to have access to your smartphone and other accounts once your time on Earth ends…”


  1. “As we rely on [more and more] data to get our bearings and exercise our agency, we lose definition as individuals” — Nicholas Carr on the tradeoffs of living in world of data
  2. Can LLMs become better at correctly answering our questions by debating each other? — yes, but better enough? And for what kinds of questions?
  3. “Reacting to the Past” provides detailed role-playing games for college courses — Greta LaFore (Gonzaga) discusses her experiences teaching with one focused on Darwin
  4. “How do we drive new knowledge and science? What are their present boundaries? And how can we improve science?” – a new book by Alexander Krauss (LSE), open access at OUP, takes up the science of science
  5. We should continue to read “immoral philosophers” because “sometimes you can learn valuable things from people who did bad stuff” — but “it can be interesting to think about why one might believe opposite,” says Liam Kofi Bright (LSE)
  6. Are laws of nature more like a layer cake, a newspaper, or a straitjacket? — Mario Hubert (LMU) surveys these different approaches
  7. New study: humans can’t distinguish poetry written by AI from that written by humans and they tend to prefer the former — Why? Brian Porter and Edouard Machery (Pitt) have some thoughts on that

The War on Poverty Is Over. Rich People Won

Yesterday (25 November), threat actor “UnicornLover67” listed the Aussie telco online, claiming to have the data of 47,300 employees for sale.


Elon Musk accused the former director of European affairs of the US National Security Council, Alexander Vindman of accepting bribes from Ukrainian oligarchs, adding that he had committed treason Alexander Vindman


 Jordan Peterson’s prophecies New Statesman 


Why do so many Americans live in poverty? Because so many rich people benefit from it, the sociologist Matthew Desmond told Annie Lowrey last year

Why do so many Americans live in poverty? Because so many rich people benefit from it.

This is the thesis of the lauded sociologist Matthew Desmond’s new book, Poverty, by America. The best seller is at once a careful exploration of poverty statistics; a deeply reported depiction of the lived experiences of the poor; an examination of the ways America’s wealthy exploit the masses; and a case for ending poverty. Desmond shows how the country’s employers, financial institutions, and landlords extract money from low-income families while rich families hoard opportunity for themselves. He also demonstrates how America’s safety-net programs are not just too stingy but poorly designed.

The War on Poverty Is Over. Rich People Won


Jackson sold his ID to an Australian gambling syndicate. He is now discovering what has been done in his name


Pakistan man charged for dealing with more than $1 million derived from scams


Dems Rip Musk-Ramaswamy Plan for Spending Cuts as Illegal ‘Power Grab’

Yves here. I’ve been waiting for legal arguments against the planned wholesale Federal budget whackage under the Trump DOGE initiative to start. Admittedly its leaders Musk and Ramaswamy had not given much insight into how they intended to achieve their ambitious aims. The little I have seen suggests that they effectively intend to override regulations….which […]




Public servants rank the agencies with best, and the worst, SES managers


Overthinking what you said? It’s your ‘lizard brain’ talking to newer, advanced parts of your brainMedical Xpress


If MMT is wrong, why is it so much better at predicting the economy – and economic disaster?Dougald Lamont’s Substack

Thursday, November 28, 2024

The government departments with the worst rates of bullying



 

The government departments with the worst rates of bullying


The latest public service census revealed 14 per cent of Home Affairs employees said they experienced harassment or bullying in the workplace, an increase of one percentage point since 2023.

Staff at Home Affairs have again scored the department worst for bullying and harassment, with new data showing the rate of poor behaviour has worsened.
Of the 16 departments and two major agencies analysed Home Affairs had the highest rate of bullying for the second year in a row.
Like last year, more than half of the perceived bullying went unreported.
The annual survey revealed public servants' attitudes on their agencies' culture, working conditions and leadership. It was the second year all 104 APS agencies were required to publish their census results.
The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Veterans' Affairs had the next highest rates of perceived bullying at 12 per cent.
Meanwhile, Education experienced the most significant increase in bullying, at 10 per cent compared with 7.6 per cent last year.

Bullying and harassment increased marginally over the year across the entire public service. Overall, 10.5 per cent of staff experienced bullying, up from 10.4 per cent a year ago.
The Department of Defence, the Department of Social Services and Services Australia also performed worse than the APS average, with 11 per cent of staff at these departments having experienced bullying.

Home Affairs staff experience sabotage, verbal abuse

Of the 16,359 staff at Home Affairs, 70 per cent completed the 2024 census, marking one of the lowest response rates across the 16 departments.
The most common type of harassment or bullying was interference with work tasks (45 per cent), which included withholding needed information, undermining and sabotaging.
Verbal abuse was the next most common form of bullying (44 per cent), followed by inappropriate and unfair application of work policies or rules (32 per cent).
Of those who experienced bullying, 57 per cent said they did not report it.
More than a third (35 per cent) of respondents said they reported the behaviour and 8 per cent said it was reported by someone else. 
Home Affairs wrote in its annual report it was committed to ensuring physical and psychological health and safety was embedded in the department's culture.
In the year to June 2024, the department introduced awareness sessions designed to eliminate bullying and harassment.
"The session pack supports leaders to have conversations with their staff about behaviour expectations and to foster a respectful and inclusive workplace," the annual report noted.

Where bullying is getting better and worse



Services Australia saw the biggest improvement in bullying incidents, falling from 11.9 per cent in 2023 to 11 per cent in 2024. The department had an 86 per cent response rate from its nearly 33,000 employees.
There were also marginal improvements at Social Services, Veterans' Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Trade and Infrastructure.
Education had, by far, the largest increase in perceived bullying between 2023 and 2024, up 2.4 percentage points. 
MORE READING:
Verbal abuse and interference with work tasks were the most common forms of bullying (both 44 per cent) at Education, followed by deliberate exclusion from work-related activities (35 per cent).
Bullying also got worse at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, where 9 per cent of staff experienced bullying compared with 7.4 per cent last year.
Treasury and the Tax Office had the lowest rates of bullying across the departments at 8 per cent, although both departments performed worse this year compared with 2023.



Anti-money laundering bill receives green light

An AML update for practitioners


Third reading agreed to
  • Amendment details: 42 Government agreed to 
    28 Nov 2024


Accountants will need to prepare for new obligations under the expanded anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime following the passage of amendments through Parliament.

Anti-money laundering reforms pass both houses



Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024


Money laundering funds serious and organised crime and impacts our economy


Anti-money laundering bill receives green light

A Senate committee has concluded that the bill to implement changes to the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime should be passed with minor amendments.

By  Miranda Brownlee    

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has handed down its report on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, recommending that the bill be passed.

The bill extends the existing Anti-money laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing regime to certain higher-risk services provided by real estate professionals and professional service providers including lawyers and accountants.

While the committee recommended that the bill be passed, it also made a number of recommendations for amendments to the bill.

The committee recommended that the bill be amended so that the reforms to the tipping off offence commence 31 March 2025 instead of 31 March 2026.

Schedule 5 of the bill reforms the current prohibition against reporting entities ‘tipping off’ their customer about the formation of a suspicion.

The new offence is focused on preventing the disclosure of suspicious matter report (SMR) information or information related to a notice issued under section 49 or 49B of the AML/CTF Act where it would or could reasonably prejudice an investigation.

The new offence framework is designed to be more flexible for reporting entities seeking to share information for legitimate purposes, including within reporting groups to manage risk and prevent further crime.

The committee said amendments to the commencement of the tipping off offence would provide greater certainty for stakeholders by removing or minimising the risk for reporting entities to reapply for current exemptions in the transition period between royal assent and the commencement date.

The committee said the the bill would "reduce complexity and close regulatory gaps in the current regime, to ensure that Australia has an effective system to deter, detect and disrupt illegal flows of money internationally, and protect Australian businesses from exploitation by criminals".

"The committee considers that this bill is a necessary and timely reform. In bringing legislation forward in 2024, the government is finally addressing a long-overdue oversight, and modernising our current AML/CTF regime, strengthening its protections, and making it more effective," it said.

Committee report ignores cost burden for small business 

In additional comments provided within the report, Senator Paul Scarr said the Committee report had failed to address the impact analysis undertaken by the Attorney-General’s Department with respect to the bill and the concerns with the estimated costs.

"In the Committee report, there is no discussion of the $13.9 billion in estimated regulatory costs. There is no discussion of the detail in the impact analysis released by the Attorney-General’s Department in August 2024," said Senator Scarr.

"The concern is that this omission reflects a lack of appreciation on the part of the government of the impact of the cost burden upon the private sector, including many small businesses."

Scarr warned that the amendments would have a "disproportionate impact" on small businesses in particular.

The impact analysis indicates that the average cost per business over a ten-year period for a business with a turnover between $200,000 and $2 million is $33,230 with an initial upfront cost of $28,650.8

"This is the average. If $33,230 were the annual cost for a business with a turnover of $1.1 million (the midpoint of the range), that would equate to approximately 3 per cent of turnover. That is as a percentage of turnover, not profit," said Scarr.

"The impact on a small regional practice could be the difference between remaining in operation or closing.

"This is a serious issue which needs to be carefully considered by the Senate; especially given that there is no visibility with respect to the AML/CTF rules which will have a material impact on what the ultimate cost burden will be."