GOOGLE'S GROWN TOO BIG FOR ITS BOOTS

Now here's an interesting article; 

"Google NZ's $60,000 loss" [Stuff, TOM PULLAR-STRECKER, 23 June 2014]

And here's another;  

"Google NZ posts loss" [RNZ, 9 June 2016]

 

Yes, trying to get anything out of Google isn't easy, is it?  Indeed, my own experience was as tiresome as trying to secure an honest tax return from Google.

My May VISA account was an interesting one.  Almost hidden among my usual vast listings of beer purchases from “Parklands Tavern,” were 12 items from Google.  It was clear they were games downloads and “In app purchases.”  I’d never heard of “Roblox” before this VISA account.

So I asked my kids if they’d played or downloaded Roblox, I showed all three kids the items on my VISA account.  They shook their heads, denied all knowledge, and I believed them – but I still checked their Google accounts, regardless.  Sure enough, no evidence of “Roblox” in their emails or Order History.  (It would have been disturbing if I HAD found anything, as I have deliberately avoided linking any of our Google accounts on our phones to any VISA card in the house.)  The money was only NZ$84, but the principle at stake here, was that some unknown person or merchant – someone I may have bought from previously – had re-used my card without  my permission.  And yes, I asked all my friends if they had heard of Roblox, in case their kids had mistakenly used my card.

Now, having tried to contact Google on a previous occasion, I knew there was no point raising it with them.  Trying to secure help from Google is almost as pointless as trying to secure help from Microsoft.  But as far as I was concerned, the Google purchases were a fraudulent, unauthorised use of my VISA card.  My bank was very understanding.  It recommended I cancel my card immediately; the transactions could be a big-time scammer testing my VISA account with small-time gaming amounts.  So I cancelled my card.

Now began the hard work.  On the bank’s instruction, I filled in a 4-page form detailing why the charges were fraudulent.  I detailed my evidence, and then I emailed it to the bank.  The money is automatically refunded as part of the process, and the onerous is then on Google to dispute it and prove I had made the transactions.  Remember, I trolled through ALL our Google accounts AND our Order Histories.  Remember also, the issue was not the NZ$84; the issue was someone had used my card fraudulently, and therefore may do so again.

Consider this.  How many people would have gone this far?  But wait, there’s more.

I followed this up with a call to the Fraud Department of the bank.  The helpful lady expressed it may even have been an administrative error by Google.  (Now there’s a great way to raise revenue when your profits are sagging; a few “administrative errors.”)

Google came back a month later, days short of their deadline, asking for its money back with a 6-page counter-challenge.  Of course, I was now obliged to troll through this.  The counter-challenge was headed by this statement;

“This purchase was initiated from the Cardholder’s Google Account using a recognised account, mobile device and credit card … Google does not believe the purchase was fraudulent and is requesting a reversal based on the compelling evidence provided below.”

The “compelling evidence” consisted of nothing more than the order invoice, its own internal order documentation, and its terms and conditions.  The onerous was now on me to counter – again; if I didn't submit a counter-submission, Google would have my reversal . . . um . . reversed.

Consider this again.  How many people would have given up at this point?  But wait, there’s more.

Google provided no real evidence themselves, but expected me to jump through hoops to prove my case.  Google provided no IP address, no phone number from the “recognised mobile device,” no email or account name of the fraudster's “recognised account,” and no statement of where the payment came from.  Google only provided confirmation that the amounts came from my credit card (heck, THAT wasn’t in dispute!).  Thus, the mighty Google was due payment.  Obviously, the “compelling evidence," was a standard response, so it was incredibly arrogant and presumptuous.  Their automated statement would have been produced at the push of a button.  My research and written responses, on the other hand, took hours.  And hours.  Remember, if I hadn’t responded to each counter, I would have lost my money.

Consider this one more time.  How many people would have given up at this point?  But wait, there’s more.

After a month of nothing, I phoned up the bank – because Google doesn’t have a phone number to call – asking what the hell was going one.  The bank told me Google had dropped the case.  No apology from Google, no formal letter stating the end of the case, no closure.  Nothing.  When I questioned the bank on this, the bank echoed my frustration, expressing that this was Google’s normal behaviour, and they don’t release the information I needed to track down my fraudulent user.

It is the behaviour of an incredibly arrogant organisation that’s grown too big for its boots. Worse than this, with Google not providing the information asked for, I had no way of tracking who had used my VISA card.  So, if I didn’t know who had scanned or used my card, then it might happen again.  The police Call Centre told me to bring my VISA statement to the police station so I can file a crime report.

So I took all the paperwork down to the police station.  This is the central police station in the Christchurch city centre, where parking is a nightmare - and it’s expensive.  When I arrived at the police station, I had to join a queue.  When I was seen, finally, the police told me to fill in an 8-page form (yes, 8 pages) and come back another day.

** heavy sigh **

Hmm. Wonder if it’s time for a blog about another incredibly arrogant organisation that’s grown too big for its boots?

THE PAIN OF BEING RIGHT

Now here’s a couple of interesting articles:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6673730/Electricity-prices-tipped-to-rise-steeply
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6675785/Tax-cuts-blamed-for-zero-Budget-admission

How are they linked? Well, I predicted electricity price rises as a consequence of reduced income tax revenue in my article last year:

“...all that results in lowering income tax is this:
• It empties the government’s coffers of much-needed tax revenue. Governments then find new taxes to fill them – usually regressive taxes – such as increased GST, increased power bills, or increased duty on fags and booze.
• It gives more money to those who already have it, not to those who need it
• The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer”

And guess what? What have we seen since the Smiling Shark came into power:

* increased GST
* increased customs duties on cigarettes and alcohol
* increased electricity prices.

[Heavy sigh]

I hate it when I’m right. I really do. It gives me no satisfaction when I’m proven visionary and correct (as well as modest) on these issues. This is because I still have to endure the pain of the wrong, when everyone says, “You’re wrong.” In this specific case, my budget is hurting like yours. But when I’m later proven right, it’s too late to change the wrong. I bemoaned another term of right-wing spin after the 2011 election, and everyone laughed at me for exaggerating like an old gay socialist. Well, they ain’t laughin’ now, with their increased GST, increased prices on beer crates and increased power prices. One year on, and the derision on this old leftie is replaced with, “Hmm, why can’t I afford some of the basics anymore? Why is my pay not going as far? Why is my tax cut not helping?” Because lowering income tax doesn’t work. And we still have another three years for the Smiling Shark to do even more damage. Read this exchange about the effect of tax cuts on affordability:

"Tax System Changes—Effect on New Zealanders"

Did you like Bill English's spin? Right-wing governments, eh? You can always trust ‘em to raise regressive taxes and not care about the effects on low-income families. What amazes me is why we let them do it?!! Regressive taxes adversely affect many more of us - real people - than the few who are part of the rich establishment. If you think about it logically, there is no way that a voting populace in a mature democracy would allow a rich 10% of the population to benefit from almost half of the total tax cut revenue. Surely, there is NO WAY that a mature democracy would allow subsequent taxes to be placed on the very people who can’t afford them?

The answer to “How can these happen?!!” is an easy one: because selfish human greed allows it to happen. First of all, the rich few sponsor a political party with the intent on having their own taxes reduced. They bleat that they pay more tax than everyone else. Duh! That’s because they earn more than anyone else! So, when The Few lobby and sponsor a political party to reduce income tax, it’s simply an opportunity cost for them; there is no moral or ethical consideration of the effects. However, that’s only an elite minority with few individual votes. For that party to come to power, we, the voting populace, have to vote them in. How on earth did enough of the population agree to such madness? Well, you, the mortgage whores, allowed it to happen by prostituting your vote. You are intelligent, thinking people, yet you sold your vote to a regressive tax government; for the “crumbs from the rich man’s table.” [Luke 16:19-31]. Do you remember this line when you voted National:

“A tax cut for every New Zealander.”


WERE YOU MAD??!! Did you really believe that GST wouldn’t be raised? Did you not realise that electricity prices would be raised again to raise revenue??!! How did you THINK such tax cuts were going to be funded?!!

Was it worth that temporary little increase in your budget? Your vote was bought.

"The Government is having to borrow in order to cover the tax cuts that they gave and so now it is putting pressure right through the Budget." [Dr Russel Norman, April 2012].

And please don’t whine and tell me, “But I never agreed to raising GST and other taxes. It wasn’t part of their election promise. I didn’t vote for that!” Well here’s another quote:

“To point out the blindingly obvious: New Zealanders in 2008 voted tax cuts for themselves that we could ill-afford as a nation... No one who voted for National in 2008 can genuinely claim ignorance – we were warned. News of the building crisis and recession filled the media. New Zealanders’ greed for money simply outstripped their common sense.” [Frank Macskasy]

You voted for tax cuts. You voted in the National Party. You voted in right-wing spin doctors who had enough financial backing to buy the advertising which kept them there for a second term. So the National Party can do pretty much anything else it wants to for the next three years. Haven’t you learnt that yet?

Clearly, I’m angry and bitter about the behaviour of this National government. I was an impoverished student during the Thatcher years, so after 17 years of right-wing government corruption in the UK, I swore blind I would never vote for a right-wing party. And I haven’t. Sadly, not everyone agrees with me. But surely many of you have similar experiences, haven’t you? Yup, you sure do.

But then a professional “Labour” party gets in and fucks it all up, so that a right-wing party sings sugar-sweet in your ears, and the entire rotten cycle begins again.

Sigh.

WHY ARE TAX CUTS NO LONGER A PRIORITY?

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6158896/Tax-cuts-no-longer-a-National-priority

I wonder why cutting income tax is now such a low priority? It wasn’t three years ago. Could it be that tax-cuts are a low priority because of the government’s legislative workload? Hang on – I thought the bulk of the government’s legislative workload was geared towards economic policy? And isn’t tax one of the key tools of this government’s economic policy?


And therein lays the key implied admission by tax-cuts being “near the bottom on the list of National's priorities”: lowering income tax doesn’t work. Lowering income tax doesn’t bring utopia prosperity. Lowering income tax doesn’t filter-down wealth to the impoverished. Lowering income tax doesn’t create a swath of new jobs. Lowering income tax doesn’t bring back the thousands of Kiwis who have migrated to Australia.

In fact, all that results in lowering income tax is this:
• It empties the government’s coffers of much-needed tax revenue. Governments then find new taxes to fill them – usually regressive taxes – such as increased GST, increased power bills, or increased duty on fags and booze.
• It gives more money to those who already have it, not to those who need it
• The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer

Let’s be quite clear: when I talk about “the rich,” I am not talking about hard-working small business operators, successful sales people, or successful information-age professionals. I’m talking about over-paid executives who continually command pay rises at obscenely higher rates than their employees. I’m talking about people who make money simply because they already have lots of money. I’m talking about people who exploit suppliers, customers and staff – and give back far, far less than they take out. I’m taking about people who actually don't need tax cuts. So when I talk about increasing tax, and not cutting tax, I'm referring to income tax at the high-end.

One of today’s wonders is the internet and the wealth of information that is freely available to all of us. And that has changed our thinking. We don’t blindly accept (well, most of us don’t) when a politician tells us that something is. When a politician spins, we can now jump on the computer and conduct some research (Hah! Like I did!).

When Margaret Thatcher was carving out her “New Age” in the 1980s, Norman Lamont and Tubby Lawson were heralding the arrival of M-O-N-E-T-A-R-I-S-M. “Ooooooooooh!” we all cooed, “Sounds impressive.” Before the internet and easily-available economic information, the western democracies accepted monetarism as the solution to stagnating economies. We let it happen. Top founding monetarist Milton Friedman became a chief advisor to Ronald Regan, and Regan thought the Laffer Curve was the most important economic diagram of the millennium. Margaret Thatcher followed suit in the “Special Relationship” between Ron-Margaret and US-UK. Poor Dennis Thatcher: how could he compete with the President of the USA and a film star (albeit a damn poor one on both counts)?

The Laffer Curve (illustrated right) determined that if you increase tax to a point, you actually lower tax revenue returns, because tax evasion becomes worthwhile. So, the Laffer Curve determined that if you lower tax, you actually increase tax revenue because the logic works in reverse (yes, that’s the theory!). At the equilibrium point, profits for business, taxes for the government, and happiness for the rich are all in sync. Monetarists will always claim the current tax rate is to the right of the curve (Point B). But just try getting those said pundits to put their head on the block and determine that optimum tax rate! In other words, the Laffer Curve is another hokum theoretical economic model.

However, Ron and Maggie loved it, and adopted it. America plunged into debt, but Britain actually climbed out of debt.

Then came the reports in the mid-1980s that Milton Friedman had fiddled the figures in his research, and so monetarism was a farce. How then, did British monetarism allegedly succeed? How did the UK national debt reduce? It wasn't due to tax cuts. It was because monetarism, chiefly a US concept, didn’t factor-in privatised industries – the USA had none! Thatcher gave away £2b a year in tax cuts, on the back of £2b a year in public asset sales. The conclusion for us all, including our new shining New Zealand government? Tax cuts don’t reduce national debt. Far from it. All that happens with a tax-cutting regime is that the rich have more, and the needy are further deprived. Thirty years of monetarism, 30 years of a tax-cutting culture, and what do we have:

• “US Affluent Classes Dwarf China and India”
• “Wealth Gap Hits 30 Year High”
• “NZ Rich-Poor Gap Widens Faster Than Rest of World”

It’s taken us 30 years of social deprivation to wake up. In the Austerity Wars of 2011, was the talk in Europe about tax cuts to bring prosperity and reduce debt? Far from it. Europe, and now even America, is considering increasing income tax at the high-end, to drag itself out of debt and recession:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/5653077/Obama-tax-rich-to-cut-deficit

Because monetarism doesn’t work. Because cutting high-end income tax doesn’t work.

As I was writing this, I was so wrapped up in the economics, I almost forgot about the social aspect of tax cuts! And therein lays the fundamental problem with the right-wing government which runs our economy. It’s all about the numbers. What do you think are the social effects of tax cuts? Consider how the needy and impoverished feel, as they watch the rich grow richer. Consider how the low-waged feel as power, rent, milk, rates, all rise above their ability to pay for them.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5989843/Revealing-the-gap-between-NZs-rich-and-poor

What reminded me about the social aspect of increased impoverishment, were the words of my flatmate in 1995, when I lived in Wimbledon. Jim Deighton was arguing against our other flatmate, Sam, whose wealthy daddy “paid too much tax.” Jim's words, while harsh, had a crude truth about them:

“So here’s the thing, Sam,” says Jim. “If you deprive the poor of social programmes, self-help programmes, and adequate living, then they’re going to come into your fancy street, and they’re going to come into your fancy house and they’re going to rob your f*cking home.”