DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ABN AND AN ACN

New business owners continue to get confused over the difference between an Australian Business Number (ABN) and an Australian Company Number (ACN).

The two unique identification numbers are actually issued by separate Government bodies. The Australian Company Number (ACN) is issued by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) when new companies are formed, and is clearly identifiable by its unique nine-digit layout. As well as helping to monitor the money that passes through companies from the perspective of the ASIC, the ACN also offers a number of trading benefits for the company itself.
The Australian Business number (ABN) is issued to all business entities by the Australian Tax Office (ATO). The ABN has eleven unique digits and can be used to verify information about the business that it is registered to. Any communications with government agencies will also be made easier and business bank accounts can be opened once an ABN has been secured.
Once an ABN or ACN has been issued, companies and businesses are required to add it to any documentation used for trading. This might include invoices, letterheads, receipts, promissory notes and order forms. Where the nine digits of an ACN are used sequentially within the eleven digits of an ABN, a company can use the ABN as an alternative to the ACN on all type of business documentation.

ABN and ACN Key Points

1. Despite their similarities, the ABN and ACN are intrinsically different. ABN is an acronym of Australian Business number while ACN is used as an acronym of Australian Company Number. An ABN can be issued to all business types including sole trader and partnership registrations, but an ACN can only be assigned to a business that registers as a company
2. An ACN is issued by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) when a business completes a company registration. The Australian Tax Office is responsible for the issue of an ABN
3. An ACN is easily identified as a unique nine-digit number whereas an ABN can be recognised as a unique eleven-digit number. A company can use an ABN in place of an ACN so long as the ABN contains the nine digits of the ACN in sequential order
4. The ACN is more widely used to identify the company as a business entity through the exclusive nine-digit number and helps that company to trade more effectively. The ABN also carries key trading benefits but it also serves to highlight and verify the credibility of a business operation. This not only makes the ABN valuable to the business that it relates to but also provides fringe benefits for consumers and other organisations who might want to carry out transactions with that particular business
5. Once a company has been issued with an ACN through the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), they are under no further obligation to obtain an additional ABN. The ACN will suffice for all trading purposes. However, due to the various benefits of having an ABN, most Australian companies secure an ABN.

http://abn.com.au/difference-between-an-abn-and-an-acn/

THE TRUTH IS OUT: MONEY IS JUST AN IOU, AND THE BANKS ARE ROLLING IN IT

The Bank of England's dose of honesty throws the theoretical basis for austerity out the window

David Graeber theguardian.com, Tuesday 18 March 2014 

'The central bank can print as much money as it wishes.' Photograph: Alamy

 

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".

Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.

The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.

It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."

In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.

What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.

Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.

But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.

Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity  

• 
  

CALL TO ARMS TO PREVENT BANKING EVICTION ON THE BOONWURRONG (MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA)

By Sno Sno,

                                    *****HELP NEEDED*****

 
On the 28th of this month, we have the sheriffs coming around to try to evict us from this home. 

It is being done unlawfully so we have made treaty with the original peoples and the land is now under Boonwurrong tribal jurisdiction.  

The Australian Government has NO lawful claim on the land, or dwellings on it, as it is proceeds of theft.  We, Kylie, Imogene and myself, are asking for help as witnesses on this day they intend on trying to evict us. 

ALSO, i would be expecting any brothers or sisters from the O.S.T.F. that can, to make it."

PM Sno on facebook for details of address or email themikiverse@gmail.com ONLY if you do not interact with facebook and wish to support.

HOW LOANS AND CREDIT CARDS REALLY WORK BY WHITE RABBIT

LIMITED LIABILITY DEATH MACHINE

12 BANKER SUICIDES LINKED TO JP MORGAN INVESTIGATION FOR FOREX MANIPULATION

BITCOIN EXPLAINED

Bitcoin Explained from Duncan Elms on Vimeo.