I was filling my tax return out, I know a tad late, and wondered why do I have to specify a title. Everytime I see this question I think this so 18th century. When you think about it is really not required. Especially when they continue on to ask marriage status and gender. Some could suggest sexist even, but lets not go there. Should we rid ourselves of this extra paperwork?

Ironically signed
The Missus

Well this is one topic we sort of agree on.
I can't see any need for Mr and Ms.
The doctor bit is simply ego and miss well why

Yeah, I hate the bit where they ask you for your address and how much you earned, for some people that could be downright embarrassing.

Never crossed my mind - probably excluding why Ms' are militant about being referred to AS Ms - and not at all worried.

Do you HAVE TO circle one but, matey pataties?

No, I don't think it's compulsory.

I think that asking you for the title by which you'd like to be addressed is one of those old fashioned courtesies that's designed to make you feel valued as a provider of revenue for the ATO.

A bit like the same way that any other institution to whom you pay money wants to know how to address you,

Don't worry too much. I have no doubt that what used to be called 'common courtesies' are on the way out.

Personally, I'd prefer to be known as Mr Morgan than by my tax file number, or my account number. I guess I must be a conservative :)

You're right Missus, I'm not a lefty after all.

I didn't realize that it was compulsory.

I always assumed that the titles were
there simply as a standard part of all
forms that had to be filled out.

Asking for a title seems like a normal request
as often it can be difficult to decipher much
from a name. A title helps.

I'm sure as long as you pay your taxes the
ATO isn't going to penalize you for leaving
the title out.

I always want to put in Admiral in the space for title.

I have never really liked the use of titles where women are concerned.
We may only know whether a man is a juvenile or an adult male by the use of the titles Mr. or Master on official forms.

For females however, we find out whether they are now, or have been, married (Mrs.), whether they have never been married or are juvenile (miss), or whether they don't want anyone to know their marital status, or don't want a title (Ms).

Yes, I believe that is most definitely sexist. I think that in this day and age we could do away with such titles, unless they are professional titles to do with a job.

It is sexist but not delibrate as it is old fashioned thing. It is not just tax forms though. Notice it here and there and think nobody actually adresses me as Mrs. BlahBlah.

If you go to a lawyer they do not have a title, or an accountant the same. Dr can mean Dr of many things so same again. Why not just say Mr. Smith Doctor of Dentistry, why Dr. Smith?

the forms you fill out..are designating you''a person'..subject to the act...the title mr= a military ranking..mrs designates property of a mr

them forms you dutyfully fill in..are forms for the public servants..who fall under the powers of the act...see we constituted govt...enable govt servants licence and registrations[powers]..under the relitive acts

you are applying to pay income tax..but no doudt dont even have income[mearly wages...we dont have a wages tax,,,its called income tax..because...one of the reasons we formed govt was to regulate and control business and trade...

income is proffit made from non value adding...income is taxable.wages arnt..read the hansard debates,,from when income tax was enacted...but somehow we all became subject to the laws of trade[mainly via the act of applying..[apply means beg...we are presumed to know for what we beg]

those who seek licence[under the powers of the act]..become subject to the act...mr mrs etc designates one ..'under'..the act

this is was happens when lawyers..are allowed to make laws..[and then former lawyers...as judges..that judge them]

we need sepperation of powers..from lawyers having their legal cartel/franchise...that makes ..then judges..laws for others

TheMissus,
I don't worry much about the tittles bit, my pet hate is why they want to know my gender.

Where the question asks, SEX? I have written at times. YES please!

Bureaucrats and computers find that difficult to handle. I once had the form returned to me with a note saying it was incomplete.

Because first names today do not identify the gender, age and status of the person it is essential when searching for identity to include additional options for identity. Names like Daryl, Lesley, Ashley, Coby, Casey etc If you have them front you are you looking at a boy or a girl, an adult male or a female. Identity theft is more prone if you cannot recognise the person. How often have you assumed the name represented an image in the mind only to find the person was of the opposite gender?

'How often have you assumed the name represented an image in the mind only to find the person was of the opposite gender?'

Never.

I can never get over the fact they ask for my address when they mailed me the form using my address. f5ckn idiots.

It should be pre-filled in.

Some could suggest sexist even, but lets not go there
--

why NOT go there because that is where the answer lies, ie in Political Correctness based upon another manufactured [pronking] word, this one called "sexist".

Or one might say "what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to be PC".

As with all these "rights" movements over the years, it starts with lawyers after a quick quid, stirring the possums, then legislation changes, then everyone parrots the pronked word.

In this case the only reason left for govt to know your "sex" [used to be gender before pronking] is because of possible Aged Pension considerations, which takes us back to the "femmo movement" of 1980s etc and in 1994 Keating realised that if we had to be "properly" equal then women also must retire at 65 and not 60 [PC in reverse if you will].

So we went into a "20 year Detox cycle" so that in 2014 women will retire too at 65.

To be continued

Perhaps someone should start a thread
on our pet hates? One of mine is loud
school kids on public transport - but
that's another story.

I don't think there's a standard form
that would make everyone happy.
Questions are asked supposedly for a reason - to
get as much relevant information as possible
about a person - be it for income tax purposes,
medical reasons, job applications, et cetera.
At least most of the questions don't usually appear to be
too invasive. You don't have to answer questions
that you find aren't relevant - such as religion.

It is interesting though that a Medical General
Practitioner is given the title "Doctor," whereas
a Medical Specialist is given the title - "Mr."
It seems that "Mr" holds greater prestige in certain
cases.

Personally, I don't worry too much about titles.
Except possibly in cases where qualifications do matter.
I would like to know that a
specialist is qualified in their field of expertise,
therefore in some cases a title does indicate
the level of their qualifications.

Now let me see if I’ve got this right….

We have Mrs Missus, Mr Morgan, Dr Divorce, Professor Philo, Admiral Agronomist and Saint G !!

And Lord Ludwig if you please!

Those of a PC persuasion, look away now.

>>I don't worry much about the titles bit, my pet hate is why they want to know my gender.<<

According to my colleague, Banjo, it's so that they know whether they can use long words when they write back to you.

*pip pip*

Ludwig,
Oi what about me, Excellency, Eminence, Examinator. OK egregious examinator.

All
By the may they do get pissed off when you write in 'god' or 'archangel' etc. Petty I know but men just want to have fun...hey their could be a song in that.

I was asked when transferring electricity providers what title I would like on the bill. Half jokingly I replied "Well what do you have?" and the lady, also I thought jokingly, went through a list of possiblities. I think at the time I might have been defending Christianity from davidf (strange for a non-believer I know) on this forum and so said "May I have Reverend please". "No problems" was the response.

Sure enough when the bill arrived it was addressed to Reverend Steele.

Had a great laugh.

Can't wait to swap phone companies.

How does Rabbi Steele sound david?

Eeegh! Please accept my extreme and extensive apologies your Exterminancy…er, Egomaniacy…erahhm, I mean, your Excellency.

< That’s enough imprudence from you Lord Ludwig. You have been heedless of the requirement to be respectful to your king. So now you will become headless! >

Princess Pelican here.

Mrs is a throwback when it was necessary for men to know a woman's marital status to be able decide if it was okay to court her.

I would prefer to use Miss. It is not as dowager sounding as Mrs and not as clipped as Ms. Boys and girls could be Master and Mistress respectively. (Although the connotation on Mistress might take a while to wear off)

Isn’t it weird that Mrs is short for Missus!

I can see why unmarried women are called Miss – they miss the point of just about every subject that requires any intellectual level of comprehension ( :> |

And then they become Mrs. The Missus misses the point even more than she did before marriage!!

Simple really!

Ahhh, they all need a good dose of testosterone!! { :>)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3301

Lord Ludwig,
It might be OK to use Rabbi, but please do not use Snr Officer or Detective or Judge, otherwise it could mean impersonating an officer of the law for which there are penalties.

Good advice Prof. Thankyou.

"And then they become Mrs. The Missus misses the point even more than she did before marriage!!"

Ah, A cheeky Lord Ludwig I see.

signed
The Marquess of Mission Beach,
aka The Missus (incognito alias)

What goes hand-in-hand with this practise are salutations:

- Her Majesty
- His Honour
- Reverend
- His Holiness

Very few physicians are conferred doctors. However surgeons with the same two Bachelor degrees and usuallly a Fellowship and post-grad diploma choose remain Mr., seemingly spoken slowly, Mmi Ster, in remembrance of Barbers of Olde.

Only, in the past few decades Australian have vets and dentists referres to themselves doctors, as distinct from a scholarly conferred doctors, wherein written communication to an academic, according to proper protocol, to a PhD who is a professor is,“Most Learned Sir/Madam,” and a non-professorial PhD is merely, “Very Learned Sir/Madam”.

Most physicians introduce themselves as, “Hello, I am Dr Jones and you are Mr/Ms…?” Im my expereience, most people who actually have a conferred “doctorate,” refer to themselves by their first name then second name.

Dr Oliver Smith PhD is a tautology and should not be used. The German’s concatenate titles; Herr Professor Doctor.

Professional titles do not appear on licenses unless you are a Judge, say Justice Fed Jones. I wonder why? Relatedly, Courts too have their hierarchies with Mr/Ms Registrar at or near the bottom.

A former colleague of mine was once in a bad car accident. When he regained consciousness in hospital, the nursing staff deferentially referred to him as Dr Anderson, presumably having gleaned his title from identification in his wallet.

After some time, one of the deferential nurses asked him where he had gained his medical qualifications. His disdainful response:

"Medical qualifications? I'm a real doctor - I have a PhD!"

He was apparently treated even better after that.

We refer to members of parliament as "Honourable"....which I presume was borrowed from the English aristocracy.

Can anyone enlighten me a little more on this one...Lord Ludwig, Marquess?

I have no problem honouring the profession or the position, but of course the person concerned remains obliged to earn that respect.

Ex CJ's storytelling, "Medical qualifications? I'm a real doctor - I have a PhD!"

I am sure that pompous statement would have exposed him as a pretentious git to busy nursing professionals who were merely trying to be polite to him. What he should have known (and some education and sensitivity could have helped), is that the title is determined by usage and the nurses' understanding of the title was correct

so back to OP question of does a govt dept need to know your gender [and if not, offend Privacy Act], here is a lay explanation of Aged Pension test from Noel Whittaker [ie interpreting Social Security Act]

"A couple is aged 68 and 66 and the husband has $400,000 in his account-based pension fund. His life expectancy is 15.48 years. The exempt amount for Centrelink purposes is calculated by dividing the account balance by his life expectancy, which in this case is $25,840. Consequently, the first $25,840 of his account-based pension income is not assessed for the income test."

now Noel does not say the husband is the one 68 but the table confirms that, so a bit "sexist" [pronking word there] for starters Noel. But what if wife was the "dominant" one [and yes "dominent is IN the act but not defined] hence as I said in orig post "what tangled webs we weave.."?

it might appear we would then divide by 18.7 or so [ie the legislation has not yet STOPPED women living longer than men]. But hey we just got all PC with "same sex partners" [yes, a pronk] and that could be 2 lesbians, and a public servant is thinking he can tell 2 women which is the more "dominant"

and the water gets even more murky when a pensioner changes gender, like the Act is silent as to the former gender or the new one.

so to program my Little Ozzie Pensioner System at www.lopsystem.com I simply became PC [very rare for me] and gave the user the option to state their gender if they wish but tied all the algorithms to the male tables.

I thought that "fair" as women will soon join US at 65 retirement age, ie we didn't join them at 60 back in 1994

so whether or not Centrelink algorithms get into such complexity is anyone's guess but AFAICS they just do the PC bit same as me [but can't see why needed under Tax Laws]