Rich families rort the system -FFS!

[Supermac Jr]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/2761191/Well-off-families-rort-system


suppose if you have 10 kids (and working!!!) you might need some govt assistance. But this is just wrong!!!

This is greed at its best

[RantyDave]

And how, exactly, do you think rich families become rich families? They work out how things work and exploit it. The fault lies with the idiots who put the incentives there in the first place.

Dave

[imdying]

Pssssh, plenty of fat lazy bludging 'sickness' beneficiaries sucking the life out of hte benefit system, no reason why these peoples shouldn't have a suck at the teat too.

[MisterD]

Well colour me surprised (not)...government creates a new set of rules and people work out how to play them to best advantage...

[firefighter]

Pssssh, plenty of fat lazy bludging 'sickness' beneficiaries sucking the life out of hte benefit system, no reason why these peoples shouldn't have a suck at the teat too.

Too fucken right. These same people are contributing to society and paying a shit load of fucken tax anyway, and probably always bloody have.

Just another fucken hippy fuckhead cuntlipped assface reporter having a dig at the well off to protect the bludging worthless fucks who should'nt even be allowed to vote. Why? Because they don't fucken pay for the priviledge.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Well colour me surprised (not)...government creates a new set of rules and people work out how to play them to best advantage...

the incentive to do so is created by the distorted tax structure, in particular the 39% jealousy top tax rate. One of the few things I agree with Roger Douglas about is his advocacy of a flat income tax.

[Swoop]

suppose if you have 10 kids you might need some govt assistance.
Perhaps some contraceptives would be nice as well.

[StoneY]

I pay 39% tax- my Wife pays 33%
We have no rental properties and do not claim any public funds assistance AT ALL (although have in the past back when on 20% tax levels)

Not all of us "jealous" tax bracketers go hunting for the bludge ya know, just the ones with fucking trust accounts and multiple investment properties etc

Have more than one house, and rent one out- get the fuck outta my godamn tax money- these cunts are as bad as dole bludgers and 1k a week dpb mums

Greedy pricks plan to make a property loss to justify ripping US off

Another sad fact- I got a payrise- it pushed my tax bracket up to the point I actually get LESS in the hand by about 5%- and I just carry on- what else can I do?
Roger has a good point on flat tax rates :yes:

[Jizah]

Another sad fact- I got a payrise- it pushed my tax bracket up to the point I actually get LESS in the hand by about 5%- and I just carry on- what else can I do?
Roger has a good point on flat tax rates :yes:


I thought that only the income exceeding the previous tax bracket is actually taxed at the higher rate?

[Usarka]

Why does it make a different if abusers of the "system" are rich or poor?

[Morcs]

Well put it this way, what would you do:

You own a company. For arguments sake say your wage to yourself is $80k.

Youd be paying a total of $19,900 tax per annum.

Simple solution, stick your partner on the payroll, and pay each a salary of $40k.

Total tax then is: $14,420. Thats a saving of $5k...



I have no problem with practices like the above to reduce the amount of tax paid, but to use it to get money by fraudulant (sp?) causes, I strongly disagree with.

[Morcs]

I thought that only the income exceeding the previous tax bracket is actually taxed at the higher rate?


Thats correct. If you earn 50k, only the 2k above 48k gets taxed in the higher bracket.

[imdying]

I thought that only the income exceeding the previous tax bracket is actually taxed at the higher rate?

Yes, that poster is an idiot :rolleyes:

[MotoGirl]

I'm a Trustee or a beneficiary of four different Trusts so I probably have a different perspective to most of you.

From what I gathered from the article, nothing has been done fraudulently; the people concerned just structured their income in a way that benefits them. And what they have done is legal. It's just sound business acumen? Would you not take something if you were entitled to it?

If there's one common thread here in NZ, it's that poor people get given handouts for squat and anyone with money gets repeatedly raped up the arse. I think "good on them!" for getting some of their tax dollars back.

[short-circuit]

Why does it make a different if abusers of the "system" are rich or poor?

The system exists to support the needs of the very poorest in our society though, so would that make exploitation by wealthy far worse?

[StoneY]

Thats correct. If you earn 50k, only the 2k above 48k gets taxed in the higher bracket.

Dude- my slary went up- my take home pay went down- I dont care what the math is- its still wrong - my tax bracket jumped 7%

I have been to 2 advisors that deal with such issues- and thats the way it is-I pay a LOT more tax now than 3 months ago- and Mr Key kept my tax cut too the bastard!

[MisterD]

The system exists to support the needs of the very poorest in our society though, so would that make exploitation by wealthy far worse?

People who skive on the dole and milk the system are exploiting the needy just as much (if not more) than those who are mitigating the amount of tax they oay in...

[ckai]

You all paid for my Uni (well where I lived at least). My dearest mummy owned a company that made no money. So I claimed living allowance. I only claimed because the signer-upper chick asked what the folks did, I told her. She said the accountant probably has it so she makes no money (or minimum) and to apply for it. I did and got it. Never mind the parents were in fact making no money for years and worked their asses off to get were they are now.

I got something because of the way the accountant made it advantageous to do so. Just like these buggers.

Is structuring your income by an accountant any different from having more kids to get more DPB? Or having a "sore back" for life so you can sit at home and get fat on the "sickness" benefit?

Or fat people on the f**ken sickness benefit!!! You're fat! Not sick!

How many of the alleged are actually rich? I don't go for people screwing the system for greed. I don't mind people making things advantageous for themselves to help get ahead.

Simple solution really...scrap all handouts. Who would be the first to complain? The rich "abusing" the system...or the fat, can't-keep-legs-closed poor abusing the system?

Cut off the greedy and lazy.

[imdying]

The system exists to support the needs of the very poorest in our society though, so would that make exploitation by wealthy far worse?So how does that makes exploitation by the wealthy any worse than exploitation by the poor?

[short-circuit]

So how does that makes exploitation by the wealthy any worse than exploitation by the poor?

Um....they can afford not to do it. Are you really that thick? Or are you just morally redundant?

[bull]

Why does it make a different if abusers of the "system" are rich or poor?

Exactly it shouldnt - tho apparently here in Kiwibiker Kangaroo court this is acceptable behaviour to get back at the poor whom are also working the system to their advantage yet in their case its a bad thing.

Typical double standards here on KB - like James Deuce said in another thread, people suck.

[short-circuit]

Exactly it shouldnt - tho apparently here in Kiwibiker Kangaroo court this is acceptable behaviour to get back at the poor whom are also working the system to their advantage yet in their case its a bad thing.

Typical double standards here on KB - like James Deuce said in another thread, people suck.

I don't agree with you but on that point of double standards -

How come if you're rich and you exploit people or "the system" you are considered "clever", "industrious" etc?

If you are poor (even if you legitimately need financial support because of your circumstances) you are labelled a "bludger", "lazy" etc

[imdying]

Um....they can afford not to do it. Are you really that thick? Or are you just morally redundant?So how does it make it worse?? You believe there should be one rules (not that they're breaking any laws mind) for the rich and one for the poor?

[imdying]

How come if you're rich and you exploit people or "the system" you are considered "clever", "industrious" etc?What are you thick? It's because the poor people break the law to do it... :rolleyes:

[short-circuit]

What are you thick? It's because the poor people break the law to do it... :rolleyes:

If you read my posts simpleton you would see that I am not referring to "rules" or "laws".

[oldrider]

So how does that makes exploitation by the wealthy any worse than exploitation by the poor?

Because that's the way lefties work, they develop a theory, create a fear and repeat the lie over and over until it becomes the perceived truth! :shifty:

I.E. Global warming anyone! :done: United Nations. :done: All employers are exploiting you. :done: Big government is OK. :done: ETC. ETC. :brick:

[imdying]

If you read my posts simpleton you would see that I am not referring to "rules" or "laws".It doesn't matter if the answer is obvious to you or not, that doesn't change it.

[short-circuit]

Because that's the way lefties work, they develop a theory, create a fear and repeat the lie over and over until it becomes the perceived truth! :shifty:

I.E. Global warming anyone! :done: United Nations. :done: All employers are exploiting you. :done: Big government is OK. :done: ETC. ETC. :brick:


It's just so fucking obvious who is responsible for the greatest abuses and exploitation.

Who do you think does the majority of the skimming, theiving and leeching - rich or poor?

[short-circuit]

It doesn't matter if the answer is obvious to you or not, that doesn't change it.

I could try to clarify what you mean by that but I don't really care.

[imdying]

I could try to clarify what you mean by that but I don't really care.That's ok, nobody who has read your posts expects you to be able to understand it :)

[Hitcher]

This is greed at its best

I would contend that it is merely a case of enterprising people exploiting dumb law.

I am constantly surprised by how long it takes for governments to close off loopholes in legislation. It's our taxpayer dollars that are being inappropriately spent through such inattention to detail, which is what really pains me.

Don't forget that it was a policy objective of the last (Bloody Labour) government to make everybody in New Zealand a beneficiary of some sort.

[short-circuit]

I would contend that it is merely a case of enterprising people exploiting dumb law.

I am constantly surprised by how long it takes for governments to close off loopholes in legislation. It's our taxpayer dollars that are being inappropriately spent through such inattention to detail, which is what really pains me.

Don't forget that it was a policy objective of the last (Bloody Labour) government to make everybody in New Zealand a beneficiary of some sort.

Does that mean you think these people are to be admired Hitcher?

[The Stranger]

the people concerned just structured their income in a way that benefits them. And what they have done is legal. It's just sound business acumen? Would you not take something if you were entitled to it?


No I wouldn't.
This is NOT a victimless "crime" it's pure self centered greed.

[short-circuit]

No I wouldn't.
This is NOT a victimless "crime" it's pure self centered greed.

Exactly. It might not be illegal but it is clearly wrong.

My question earlier wasn't answered so I'll try again: Why is it that the people on this forum who are consistent hand wringing about beneficiaries burdening the system (read them) seem to approve of this kind of "enterprise"

[wbks]

KULAKS! KULAKs! *hang them

[short-circuit]

KULAKS! KULAKs! *hang them

At least someones prepared to show that thats about the size of it. Hypocrisy of worst kind.

[StoneY]

No I wouldn't.
This is NOT a victimless "crime" it's pure self centered greed.

I totally agree -and I already know we often do not- but this time we are as one in opinion my StrangE friend:done:

[slofox]

This is NOT a victimless "crime" it's pure self centered greed.

Bit like MP's perks really, innit..?

[Pedrostt500]

I'm no accountancy boffin but how would an accross the board tax rate ie 20% as a number out of the air, every private person, busness or corperation operating in the boarders of NZ pay the same rate of Tax, no refunds. ditch GST, cut out all the other funny little Taxes, if you earn a dollar 20 cents is tax, the other 80cents to do what you want with.

[Hitcher]

Does that mean you think these people are to be admired Hitcher?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[short-circuit]

I'm no accountancy boffin but how would an accross the board tax rate ie 20% as a number out of the air, every private person, busness or corperation operating in the boarders of NZ pay the same rate of Tax, no refunds. ditch GST, cut out all the other funny little Taxes, if you earn a dollar 20 cents is tax, the other 80cents to do what you want with.


Start a new thread on it. But with a policy like that you'd be right of the Nazi party. Maybe ACT would take you?

Perhaps you would enjoy living in a third world country with widespread poverty/crime, and a lack of any kind of public health, education or any sort of social services - who knows?

[short-circuit]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

So I take it you don't want to give me a straight answer then?

[Hitcher]

So I take it you don't want to give me a straight answer then?

I'd me delighted, if you asked me a straight question. If you persist in trying to put words in my mouth, I may be forced to respond with a gratuitous and demeaning ad hominem.

[2_SL0]

I would contend that it is merely a case of enterprising people exploiting dumb law.

I am constantly surprised by how long it takes for governments to close off loopholes in legislation. It's our taxpayer dollars that are being inappropriately spent through such inattention to detail, which is what really pains me.

Don't forget that it was a policy objective of the last (Bloody Labour) government to make everybody in New Zealand a beneficiary of some sort.

They have to be careful which loop holes they close off, they may do themselves out of an income via exploitation themselves.

[short-circuit]

Demeaning bling sent your way fuckwit

[Mully]

Ya know what's good? The ignore list.

*sigh* bliss.

[Hitcher]

Demeaning bling sent your way fuckwit

Thank you for drawing that to my attention. I may never have looked at my rep status and noticed otherwise. I hope you feel better now.

I'm still waiting for the straight question.

[HenryDorsetCase]

No I wouldn't.
This is NOT a victimless "crime" it's pure self centered greed.

dude, it isn't a "crime" of any sort.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Start a new thread on it. But with a policy like that you'd be right of the Nazi party. Maybe ACT would take you?

Perhaps you would enjoy living in a third world country with widespread poverty/crime, and a lack of any kind of public health, education or any sort of social services - who knows?

ad hominem.

and thank you for your description of NZ which I pay for already. I'd like to pay less tax so that I could afford to send you to "Logic for beginners 101".

and at least the trains would run on time.

[short-circuit]

Thank you for drawing that to my attention. I may never have looked at my rep status and noticed otherwise. I hope you feel better now.

I'm still waiting for the straight question.

I don't think I really need to ask it do I?

It's quite clear that you (like the majority of arsehole users of this forum) admire the kind of weasel [your words - enterprising] accounting practices that enable other arseholes to collect benefits that they really should have no entitlements to.

[short-circuit]

ad hominem.

and thank you for your description of NZ which I pay for already. I'd like to pay less tax so that I could afford to send you to "Logic for beginners 101".

and at least the trains would run on time.

Flat tax society = flat earth society

[MotoGirl]

No I wouldn't.
This is NOT a victimless "crime" it's pure self centered greed.

It's not a crime. Period.

Can you clarify how it is "greed" when they are legally entitled to it? And are NZ's beneficiaries also greedy?

[Pedrostt500]

Start a new thread on it. But with a policy like that you'd be right of the Nazi party. Maybe ACT would take you?

Perhaps you would enjoy living in a third world country with widespread poverty/crime, and a lack of any kind of public health, education or any sort of social services - who knows?

20% was a number out of the air, and is far less than the actual tax you pay at the moment, for instance you earn $100 as an employee, you pay PAYE, you go out and by lunch for $10, you pay another 12.5 % GST on that $10 that you have already paid PAYE on, if you spend $20 on petrol for your bike, 12.5 % GST plus a Road users Tax as well that is inclusive of the price of petrol, if you buy a beer, then you also pay excise taxes with the Gst charged on top.
The government Knows that a major chunk of what you earn as a wage earner will be paid in various TAXES after PAYE has been taken out of your wages for you by your employer. So I'm right wing?, think again.

[Robert Taylor]

I pay 39% tax- my Wife pays 33%
We have no rental properties and do not claim any public funds assistance AT ALL (although have in the past back when on 20% tax levels)

Not all of us "jealous" tax bracketers go hunting for the bludge ya know, just the ones with fucking trust accounts and multiple investment properties etc

Have more than one house, and rent one out- get the fuck outta my godamn tax money- these cunts are as bad as dole bludgers and 1k a week dpb mums

Greedy pricks plan to make a property loss to justify ripping US off

Another sad fact- I got a payrise- it pushed my tax bracket up to the point I actually get LESS in the hand by about 5%- and I just carry on- what else can I do?
Roger has a good point on flat tax rates :yes:


Yep, its those at the top and those at the bottom who are screwing those in the middle. The tax system should be simplified, maybe we should just have a flat consumption tax.
Im all for hard work, people doing productive things that benefit the country and employ people. One thing I particularly hate is brazen speculation.

[short-circuit]

It's not a crime. Period.

Can you clarify how it is "greed" when they are legally entitled to it? And are NZ's beneficiaries also greedy?


Confused about the differences and connections between morality and legality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

Read the thread from the start - it's about who should qualify as a beneficiary (surely this should be based on NEED)

[short-circuit]

The tax system should be simplified, maybe we should just have a flat consumption tax.

Who will be most affected by that?

[Ixion]

It's not a crime. Period.

Can you clarify how it is "greed" when they are legally entitled to it? And are NZ's beneficiaries also greedy?

If I go out with others to a shared meal, and shove my way forward and shovel 90% of the food onto my own plate, that is not illegal. But I am sure the others would say that I was greedy.

Yes, many beneficiaries are also greedy.

I have little time for either trustifarians or able bodied benefit bludgers. Both are shirkers and betwixt the two they have brought this country to its knees.

Every year the proportion of people actually putting in a honest day's work for a fair day's pay steadily reduces.

Vote Communist. The only party that will abolish both taxes and benefits.

[MotoGirl]

Confused about the differences and connections between morality and legality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

Read the thread from the start - it's about who should qualify as a beneficiary (surely this should be based on NEED)

You could continue to debate this for hours and never convince me that your morals are right. I have my own, thanks.

Benefits have criteria to determine eligibility; if you meet those criteria then the system deems you to "need" that benefit.

[short-circuit]

Benefits have criteria to determine eligibility; if you meet those criteria then the system deems you to "need" that benefit.

An attempt to exonerate the indefensible.

Fail.

[Pedrostt500]

You could continue to debate this for hours and never convince me that your morals are right. I have my own, thanks.

Benefits have criteria to determine eligibility; if you meet those criteria then the system deems you to "need" that benefit.

But if the Income is manipulated to be able to get an eligibility to a benifit, that other wise would not be eligible for, does this not moraly bankrupt the system, and should it be these loop holes that should be tightened or closed.

[oldrider]

It's just so fucking obvious who is responsible for the greatest abuses and exploitation.

Who do you think does the majority of the skimming, thieving and leeching - rich or poor?

Skimming, thieving and leeching, as you put it, happens right across the full spectrum of society!

Think about it, no one section of society has a monopoly on dishonesty!

And the only member of society that you have any influence over, regarding their behaviour, is yourself!

Can we trust you? only you can answer that! Personally, my judgement tells me that we most likely can!

I hope I am right, society desperately needs people like you! :yes:

[StoneY]

An attempt to exonerate the indefensible.

Fail.

Ummm more like epic?

[Hitcher]

I don't think I really need to ask it do I?

It's quite clear that you (like the majority of arsehole users of this forum) admire the kind of weasel [your words - enterprising] accounting practices that enable other arseholes to collect benefits that they really should have no entitlements to.

If you choose to overlay a veneer of bitterness that mirrors your prejudices and envy onto what was a non-committal statement on my part, then that is your problem, not mine.

Would you like a ladle of gravy for that pile of chips on your shoulder?

[short-circuit]

Would you like a ladle of gravy for that pile of chips on your shoulder?

You might have a point there - you do get world weary when surrounded by a majority that are complicit (whether through ignorance or self interest) in supporting societal selfishness and injustice.

Vinegar and H.P sauce thanks

[Hitcher]

You might have a point there - you do get world weary when surrounded by a majority that are complicit (whether through ignorance or self interest) in supporting societal selfishness and injustice.

And here's me thinking that anybody you thought disagreed with you must be a "facist bitter old cunt".

[short-circuit]

And here's me thinking that anybody you thought disagreed with you must be a "facist bitter old cunt".

And here's me thinking I have a right to be offended by a public insinuation that I am a wife beater. At least my personal attacks were just that: personal – and in response to you. But since you’ve made it public, I'm sure my retaliatory accusations of you are closer to the mark than yours of me.

The irony is that the guy that consistently calls on ad hominem attacks is one of the biggest proponents of the tactic

[Hitcher]

I see that subtlety and nuance is wasted on some.

[short-circuit]

I see that subtlety and nuance is wasted on some.

A cheap shot's a cheap shot.

Have you thought political career? I reckon you could be far more plausible than Rodney.

[spacemonkey]

A cheap shot's a cheap shot.

Have you thought political career? I reckon you could be far more plausible than Rodney.

Apparently with his sense of entitlements he could even be the new Bill English! :blink:

[Grahameeboy]

And how, exactly, do you think rich families become rich families? They work out how things work and exploit it. The fault lies with the idiots who put the incentives there in the first place.

Dave

Not everyone exploits though so incentives or not we are not all incented (?)

[Grahameeboy]

It's not a crime. Period.

Can you clarify how it is "greed" when they are legally entitled to it? And are NZ's beneficiaries also greedy?

It's a moral crime...

[The Stranger]

It's not a crime. Period.

Can you clarify how it is "greed" when they are legally entitled to it? And are NZ's beneficiaries also greedy?

The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives 2 apt definitions of crime in this circumstance as follows 1) an evil act, and 2) a shameful act. If you don't see that either of these may apply then I am sorry for you.

Greed has nothing to do with legality, there is nothing to clarify.
Greed is generally considered to be excess, if a beneficiary takes in excess then yes they are greedy.

The inference I take from your comments is that if it is not illegal it is not wrong.
Are people are so bereft of a moral compass that they are incapable of deciding for themselves right from wrong?

[The Stranger]

dude, it isn't a "crime" of any sort.

I beg to differ (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129361681&postcount=72).

[The Stranger]

Bit like MP's perks really, innit..?

Yes, and no.
We get what we deserve. Have you ever heard Parliment debate their remuneration, retirement and perks packages? Probably not, the legslation is passed with incredible speed and usually recieves the full support of all parties - for some strange reason.
We put the cat in charge of the goldfish, we get what we deserve.

To be fair, they set a very low standard for the rest of us to follow, however there is no excuse for the rest of us to stoop to such a low level.

[MotoGirl]

The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives 2 apt definitions of crime in this circumstance as follows 1) an evil act, and 2) a shameful act. If you don't see that either of these may apply then I am sorry for you.

How is protecting your assets using a Trust an evil or shameful act?
I don’t see why people who act prudently should be penalised when irresponsible jackarses get given handouts. If you think this doesn’t happen, read on...

My grandfather lived in a retirement home for four years while he slowly disintegrated from Parkinson’s and Diabetes. Not only had my grandparents owned their own business but they had paid shitloads of tax and saved for their retirement. They never even had a mortgage for God’s sake – it was all cash in the bank.

Because they were sittin’ pretty, they had to fork out for grandad’s care –somewhere to the tune of $120,000. Meanwhile, my great-uncle– a raging alcoholic who had pissed everything away – was also in the retirement home and receiving the same standard of care, although his was paid for by the government.

Why should my great-uncle have been given a handout? He wasn’t “needy”, he was just a fuckwit who blew his money on things that weren’t necessities.

[The Stranger]

How is protecting your assets using a Trust an evil or shameful act?
I don’t see why people who act prudently should be penalised when irresponsible jackarses get given handouts. If you think this doesn’t happen, read on...



There is nothing wrong with a trust, they serve many a legitimate purpose.
Though as a vehicle with which to extract more money from the govt (i.e. your friends, family and fellow man) for no return (work, goods or services etc) I find somewhat shameful at the least.
Were this an intended consequence I would put it in the evil category personally.

[short-circuit]

How is protecting your assets using a Trust an evil or shameful act?
I don’t see why people who act prudently should be penalised when irresponsible jackarses get given handouts. If you think this doesn’t happen, read on...

My grandfather lived in a retirement home for four years while he slowly disintegrated from Parkinson’s and Diabetes. Not only had my grandparents owned their own business but they had paid shitloads of tax and saved for their retirement. They never even had a mortgage for God’s sake – it was all cash in the bank.

Because they were sittin’ pretty, they had to fork out for grandad’s care –somewhere to the tune of $120,000. Meanwhile, my great-uncle– a raging alcoholic who had pissed everything away – was also in the retirement home and receiving the same standard of care, although his was paid for by the government.

Why should my great-uncle have been given a handout? He wasn’t “needy”, he was just a fuckwit who blew his money on things that weren’t necessities.

Like Stranger said, the use of a trusts is not the issue - it is the use of trusts and other invisible investments to extract extra benefits (not "entitlements") for which you have no real NEED for.

Shameful.

[Hitcher]

Wherever there is a welfare state or state-funded charity, there will be rorts.

People seem to forget that taxpayer funded welfare should be a safety net, not a hammock. It certainly isn't an entitlement.

Trusts aren't the only vehicles available for people to "protect" their assets or minimise their liabilities. Limited liability companies, shell companies, offshore bank accounts, credit cards and insurance also provide mechanisms to protect/conceal assets from the prying eyes and sticky fingers of the New Zealand Inland Revenue Department and agencies with a vested interest in one's financial position.

The Government is promising a review of the current benefit and personal taxation schemes, and has already started to fly a few kites in this regard. It will be interesting to see what their serious contenders for change are.

[RantyDave]

Refusing a "handout" is exactly the same thing as refusing a tax cut. Do you see anyone refusing a tax cut? Volunteering to pay more?

Dave

[short-circuit]

the prying eyes and sticky fingers of the New Zealand Inland Revenue Department and agencies with a vested interest in one's financial position.


Again the weasel words implying that taxation is somehow theft.

Ask the Edwardians or the Victorians what their societies were like without taxation. Ask them how well "charity" alone served them

[short-circuit]

Refusing a "handout" is exactly the same thing as refusing a tax cut. Do you see anyone refusing a tax cut? Volunteering to pay more?

Dave


I dunno about that Dave. I'd like fairer taxation - far more progressively structured. It would involve the majority paying more.

I'm quite prepared to pay for the benefits of living in a civilised and socially responsible society.

[MotoGirl]

There is nothing wrong with a trust, they serve many a legitimate purpose.
Though as a vehicle with which to extract more money from the govt (i.e. your friends, family and fellow man) for no return (work, goods or services etc) I find somewhat shameful at the least.
Were this an intended consequence I would put it in the evil category personally.

Cheers for that. :D Although, personally I consider it more of an "added bonus" provided it [the Trust] wasn't setup solely for the purpose of gaining these additional benefits.

[short-circuit]

Cheers for that. :D Although, personally I consider it more of an "added bonus" provided it [the Trust] wasn't setup solely for the purpose of gaining these additional benefits.

....but you'll take them any way - just because you can.



Are you the kind of person that would go looting after a natural disaster?

[The Stranger]

Refusing a "handout" is exactly the same thing as refusing a tax cut.

Exactly??
Tax is taking what you earned from you. A tax cut is taking less of what you earned from you.
A hand out is something you didn't earn, but someone else did, so you are taking from your friends and family.
If everyone recieves a tax cut then everyone benefits, if you take a handout not intended for you, you benefit at the expense of others.

I don't see it as exactly the same thing by any stretch.

[boomer]

Exactly??
Tax is taking what you earned from you. A tax cut is taking less of what you earned from you.
A hand out is something you didn't earn, but someone else did, so you are taking from your friends and family.
If everyone recieves a tax cut then everyone benefits, if you take a handout not intended for you, you benefit at the expense of others.

I don't see it as exactly the same thing by any stretch.

one could argue that a tax cut is only a reduction in the left hand, the right hand then needs to increase $$ or reduce output to cover the left hands tax cut..

[Hitcher]

Again the weasel words implying that taxation is somehow theft.

Any inference drawn is yours.

Are you saying that taxation isn't theft?

[Hitcher]

Are you the kind of person that would go looting after a natural disaster?

Define "looting". Does that include sourcing food to feed one's family or medical supplies for the sick and injured?

[boomer]

Define "looting". Does that include sourcing food to feed one's family or medical supplies for the sick and injured?

no.. its getting a 60" LCD TV :done:

can i have one on blick plse?!

[short-circuit]

Are you saying that taxation isn't theft?

I'm saying it's a responsiblity - part of a social contract that entitles one to contribute in order to receive the benefits of a civilised society.

[short-circuit]

Define "looting". Does that include sourcing food to feed one's family or medical supplies for the sick and injured?

That example would relate to NEED and SURVIVAL obviously.

I don't think these are issues in MotoGirl's case. She's just helping herself because she can and the people she's ripping off are faceless

[MotoGirl]

That example would relate to NEED and SURVIVAL obviously.

I don't think these are issues in MotoGirl's case. She's just helping herself because she can and the people she's ripping off are faceless

Why do assume that I am ripping anyone off? I don't have kids so I'm obviously not claiming anything from Working for Families. Your claims that I'm stealing from Joe Public are nothing but written diahorrea.

I won’t apologise on behalf of those who do take a piece of the pie and, who in your mind, are thieving, deceitful scumbags. You’ll not find me being sympathetic to bludgers who aren't prepared to help themselves by getting of their arses and getting a job. You may find it acceptable that beneficiaries can have a higher standard of living than us workers but I don’t.

[short-circuit]

Why do assume that I am ripping anyone off? I don't have kids so I'm obviously not claiming anything from Working for Families. Your claims that I'm stealing from Joe Public are nothing but written diahorrea.

I won’t apologise on behalf of those who do take a piece of the pie and, who in your mind, are thieving, deceitful scumbags. You’ll not find me being sympathetic to bludgers who aren't prepared to help themselves by getting of their arses and getting a job. You may find it acceptable that beneficiaries can have a higher standard of living than us workers but I don’t.


Your statements support those who are. From what I've read, I don't doubt that you would claim if you could.

If you think really do think that living on the DPB is riding the gravy train - why aren't you doing it? As a utilitarian (who apparently believes that beneficaries have a higher standard of living than you), I'm surprised you haven't signed up already

[Hitcher]

I don't think these are issues in MotoGirl's case. She's just helping herself because she can and the people she's ripping off are faceless

On the subject of facelessness, at this stage I think you should either apologise for impugning MotoGirl's reputation, or provide us all with proof that you have never once, wittingly or unwittingly, received any form of payment or gratuity to which you were not entitled, from the state or whomever.

[short-circuit]

On the subject of facelessness, at this stage I think you should either apologise for impugning MotoGirl's reputation, or provide us all with proof that you have never once, wittingly or unwittingly, received any form of , from the state or whomever.

Sure......MotoGirl I apologise for suggesting that you have actually been claiming from Working for Families. The staunchness in way you defended the behaviour of those people who are doing just this, led me to believe that you were doing so yourself. However, your line of argument shows that that is exactly what you would do if you were in a position to do so. And to defend this "entitlement" is still a repugnant act in itself.


To you Hitcher - I see you've shyed away from any kind of position on these matters, choosing instead to take pot shots at me. Fine. And no, I won't ask you for an apology for your cheap shots either. I wonder why one (who is normally so forthright and big mouthed) has gone quiet on this subject, instead falling back on personal discrediting games


I haven't provided you with proof that I haven't "received payment or gratuity to which I am not entitled" because I can't (how the fuck could anyone do that on a forum?) However I can say that I am an honest person who has worked for what I have and that I have too much integrity and respect for others, than to take what I know (morally) I have no right to.

Can you say the same?

[boomer]

Sure......MotoGirl I apologise for suggesting .....However, your line of argument shows that that is exactly what you would do if you were in a position to do so. And to defend this "entitlement" is still a repugnant act.



ahahhahahahahahahha :finger:

[MisterD]

I'm saying it's a responsiblity - part of a social contract that entitles one to contribute in order to receive the benefits of a civilised society.

There is no such thing as a "social contract"...taxes are taken on an "or else" basis.

[short-circuit]

ahahhahahahahahahha :finger:

It's easy to slice the comment away from it's context. Do you really think I care about the sentiments of a moron expressed through an emoticon?

[Ixion]

Any inference drawn is yours.

Are you saying that taxation isn't theft?

What a silly statement. Of course taxation is not theft. Not in a democracy anyway. It's an admission charge, the charge you pay for being a member of that society and enjoying its benefits.

Don't want to pay it? Either persuade the rest of the society to change it (we call that voting); or go away somewhere else.

It's no more theft than a cinema charging you to go in.

Whether the charges are FAIR may be another matter. Once they become too unfair there is usually an eventual rebellion : in NZ's case, refer Mr Douglas. For the UK Mrs Thatcher.

[short-circuit]

There is no such thing as a "social contract"...taxes are taken on an "or else" basis.

Refer to the post above. Eloquently put BTW Ixion

[MisterD]

Refer to the post above. Eloquently put BTW Ixion

A contract is something freely entered into, just because I suck up the forced appropriation of my hard-earned to live in this country, does not make me party to a contract...it makes me the victim of a protection racket.

[boomer]

It's easy to slice the comment away from it's context. I do you really think I care about the sentiments of a moron expressed through an emoticon?


your apology was double sided.. at best.

like you; it had no meaning.

[boomer]

...enjoying its benefits.


Unfortunately everyone gets these benefits no matter how much they get deducted. In fact.. you get to enjoy the benefits that cost additional $$ if you pay no tax in the first place.


Pretty fooked up if you ask me; especially as the only real attractions in NZ are those that are fookin free.. the stuff the governments have provided are less than shit house standard compared to the rest of the world..!

[RantyDave]

Tax is taking what you earned from you. A tax cut is taking less of what you earned from you. A hand out is something you didn't earn, but someone else did, so you are taking from your friends and family.
I guess, then, it depends on your definition of handout. In this case we are talking about people who are earning, paying tax, and then getting some amount back via "working for families" - which is a tax credit and not a 'cash in hand' at all.

So, yeah, I guess my terminology is wrong and I was actually questioning whether or not someone would refuse a tax credit. In my case, nope :)

Dave

[short-circuit]

A contract is something freely entered into, just because I suck up the forced appropriation of my hard-earned to live in this country, does not make me party to a contract...it makes me the victim of a protection racket.

You can exit out of it freely by fucking off to live in the jungle with other like minded creatures...

Either that or convince enough KBers and whoever else you'd need to vote for the ACT party.

[short-circuit]

like you; it had no meaning.

For a person of no import or meaning, I sure seem attractive to you.

Twice now you've threatened (?) promised (?) to ignore me and it's yet to happen.


Moron

[Ixion]

Unfortunately everyone gets these benefits no matter how much they get deducted. In fact.. you get to enjoy the benefits that cost additional $$ if you pay no tax in the first place.


Pretty fooked up if you ask me; especially as the only real attractions in NZ are those that are fookin free.. the stuff the governments have provided are less than shit house standard compared to the rest of the world..!

True enough. Whether that's fooked up depends I guess on where you are in the financial pecking order.

As I said, if it gets too fooked up, people end up rebelling and changing it to something somewhat less fooked up. You get the chance (along with everybody else) every three years.

The distribution of the benefits within the society is also debateable. Like, that's what we're actually debating!

[MisterD]

You can exit out of it freely by fucking off to live in the jungle with other like minded creatures...

Either that or convince enough KBers and whoever else you'd need to vote for the ACT party.

Thankyou for illustrating my point...taxes are "pay or else" the social contract is a myth perpetrated by lefties who want ever greater control of our lives.

I'm arguing the extreme (actually more of a Libertarian POV) because I'd actually like to have a social contract where putting money into the pot gets you rights and taking money out of the pot gives you responsibilities...cos that sure ain't the case now.

[short-circuit]

Thankyou for illustrating my point...taxes are "pay or else" the social contract is a myth perpetrated by lefties who want ever greater control of our lives.

Go back through history and see how it ended up that way....that's what people fought and died for.


As far as what you want: refer to my previous post......or Ixion's #98 (about democracy). You're outnumbered evidently.

[Hitcher]

To you Hitcher - I see you've shyed away from any kind of position on these matters, choosing instead to take pot shots at me. Fine. And no, I won't ask you for an apology for your cheap shots either. I wonder why one (who is normally so forthright and big mouthed) has gone quiet on this subject, instead falling back on personal discrediting games
You obviously haven't read everything I've posted in this thread and perhaps if you had asked a straight question, as I suggested some time ago, you may have got a straight answer. I resist answering loaded questions where either a yes or no answer is an equal admission of guilt -- the nuance you were so quick to pick up on when I enquired as to whether or not you had stopped beating your wife.


I haven't provided you with proof that I haven't "received payment or gratuity to which I am not entitled" because I can't (how the fuck could anyone do that on a forum?) However I can say that I am an honest person who has worked for what I have and that I have too much integrity and respect for others, than to take what I know (morally) I have no right to.

Can you say the same?

Yes I can. Is it true? To the best of my knowledge it is.

Standing on self-claimed moral high ground and taking cheap shots at folks is a tactic I, like you, am guilty of. Internet forums lend themselves quite nicely to such endeavour. However, when I overstep the mark and need to apologise to people, I do so genuinely without resorting to kicking them in the nuts in the process.

Can you say the same?

[MisterD]

You're outnumbered evidently.

Yep, that's sure what it feels like as a tax payer...

[short-circuit]

However, when I overstep the mark and need to apologise to people, I do so genuinely without resorting to kicking them in the nuts in the process.

Can you say the same?

Absolutely - when I think I have overstepped the mark and an apology is deserved and/or appropriate.

Do I think this is such a case? Do I fuck. Go back and read through her posts if it isn't clear to you why

[short-circuit]

Yep, that's sure what it feels like as a tax payer...

Yeah? Cause you are the only one of those whos opinion matters?

[MisterD]

Yeah? Cause you are the only one of those whos opinion matters?

No, not even the only one whos opinion matters to me, but the point remains that there is no f-ing social contract and the fact that so many people continue to suck it up is only testament to the pain level being kept to a tolerable level (wherein lies the art of taxation as Ixion pointed out).

As for democracy, can you really differentiate the Labour and National Parties? Successive governments have addicted the populus to the drip feed of hand-outs to the extent that they expect government to provide the solution everything...whatever happen to the self-reliant pioneer stock Kiwi?

That some of those who shoulder the tax burden should look to mitigate their losses is only to be expected...and no, I have no family trusts and receive no money from the government of any form, although my investments remaining in the UK remain undeclared (if mainly because it's just less hassle than filling out the forms).

[MacD]

John Key seems to agree it is a "rort" (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591703)

Perhaps the State House boy is still in there?

[chef]

that is bowllll shiat!

[oldrider]

You can exit out of it freely by fucking off to live in the jungle with other like minded creatures...

Either that or convince enough KBr's and whoever else you'd need to vote for the ACT party.

ACT is just another left wing socialist "State Control" party! (Big government as opposed to Big Business))

They just happen to be a little bit more to the right of all the other "left of centre" socialist parties!

ACT are definitely not right wing!

Taxation "is" theft, (extortion actually) would you volunteer to pay if they did not use force to extract taxation from you?

Don't pay, go to jail! :2guns: Extortion! :sick: State control! :brick: Big government! (control over individual freedom and expression) :bash: = Socialism!