GST going up, Personal and company tax going down, CGT in investment property

[Tank]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10621245

Im guessing that a number of the items are going to be adopted. As they say the current tax system has a lot of problems.

Personally I think that all the above (in the title) are great ideas.

What are your thoughts !!!!!

(Sits waiting for the lefties to moan about 'rich pricks' getting tax breaks)

[madmal64]

Gets a tick from me.
The proposals seem far fairer than the current system.

[mashman]

The only one i have a problem with is the GST. After all it's on the "staples" of life and that won't be good news for those who are just surviving. Other than that it doesn't look too bad.

[Pascal]

I like it in principle. Any tax system geared less towards punishing wealth creation and more towards consumption is better than the 9 years of envy tax we've had to endure.

[wickle]

it was always the intention that GST would be higher and personal tax lower , at one time I'm shore 20% GST was mention and little or no personal tax was a option, not a bad idea save and make more spend and pay tax.

[yungatart]

The only one i have a problem with is the GST. After all it's on the "staples" of life and that won't be good news for those who are just surviving. Other than that it doesn't look too bad.

If the reduction in personal tax is enough, it should offset increases in GST...well, in an ideal world, anyway...

[rainman]

(Sits waiting for the lefties to moan about 'rich pricks' getting tax breaks)

I/S says it better (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-surprises.html) than I ever could:


A group of rich, right-wing ideologues wants a more regressive tax system which sticks it to the poor with higher GST while giving tax cuts to the rich and opening new loopholes for them to dodge paying their fair share through corporate fronts.

Screw that.



The only one i have a problem with is the GST. After all it's on the "staples" of life and that won't be good news for those who are just surviving.

Most of NZ's problems would be improved by raising wages and employment levels. Not sure how these proposals will do that. More GST will be plenty hard for those at the bottom of the pile, so exempting basic foodstuffs would be better. Might be too complex for us, though.


it was always the intention that GST would be higher and personal tax lower , at one time I'm shore 20% GST was mention and little or no personal tax was a option, not a bad idea save and make more spend and pay tax.

Paradox of thrift? Remember spending is what drives the economy.

[Pascal]

Remember spending is what drives the economy.

You can't spend money you don't have.

[mashman]

If the reduction in personal tax is enough, it should offset increases in GST...well, in an ideal world, anyway...

but not everyone that buys food has a job. Let alone getting the food from those fuckin vans that charge a fortune... in an ideal world, money wouldn't exist!

[James Deuce]

That'll probably fuck me owning a bike. Srsly.

[mashman]

You can't spend money you don't have.

but the government are borrowing it at a staggering 250mil per week... So run that one past me again!

[Mully]

You can't spend money you don't have.

Tell that to my wife.......

On topic: the proposals appear to be better for me. And that's what important.

[rainman]

You can't spend money you don't have.

Dunno, we seem to have been managing fine with that approach for a while. As have most of the western economies - notably the US.

EDIT: You do know money isn't like gold bars in a vault, right?

[p.dath]

You can't spend money you don't have.

The nzherald article doesn't really discuss how property tax will be done, but I'm in favour of higher gst, lower other taxes. It provides a good inscentive to save (which NZ needs to re-learn), and everyone as to spend if they want something, so the tax applies to all. GST is simple to administer, and very hard to avoid.

[Flatcap]

GST is simple to administer, and very hard to avoid.

Unless you create a barter economy

[Pascal]

but the government are borrowing it at a staggering 250mil per week... So run that one past me again!

Yes, the government having to fund the welfare state is the biggest exception :p

If the government keeps taking money off the "rich pricks", the mobility of their skills will eventually drive them to places where the cost of living is lower and they retain more of their income. This reduces the tax take available. It reduces the potential for further job creation, investment in companies and building on the economic wellbeing of the country as a whole.

By using GST as the primary source of income, they will be taxing spending. Good. But they will be encouraging people to increase their income and increase their savings and investments. Building future wealth at all levels.

[JimO]

those that think raising gst is a good idea remember that we pay gst on fuel that is already what??60% tax, rates etc raising gst is hard on low earners as they have to spend all their income to survive, i reckon that there should be no gst on food ......and smokes arnt food thay can raise the gst on smokes 500% for all i care. National are trying hard to be a 1 term gvmnt. dont be fooled into thinking that your personal tax would be lower

[Edbear]

You know what I find interesting? In any economy, particularly any Western economy, there are always the rich and the poor and the "middle class".

The one's making money will always make money and the one's living on the bones of their bum will always live on the bones of their bum.

There may be some advantages to tinkering with the tax system, and certain people in certain positions may be better off. However, for those who are now making money and living fairly well under this tax system, they will continue to do so under any new system.

For those who are struggling in this system, maybe they would be better served to ask and study how the better off are doing it?

Far greater differences are achievable by using three truisms...

1/ Improve your personal education, yes, that means study and learn and if you didn't do it at school, do it now.

2/ Set yourself goals, things you want to do and achieve and find out what it will take to achieve them, then do it!

3/ No-one is going to hand it to you. People will help with advice and encouragement if they see you working hard to better yourself, but you have to put in the effort, (and yes, it is an effort!), and the time and the energy to do it for yourself. Too hard? Okay, that's fine but you will ever remain as you are, otherwise.

[Tank]

I/S says it better (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-surprises.html) than I ever could:

A group of rich, right-wing ideologues wants a more regressive tax system which sticks it to the poor with higher GST while giving tax cuts to the rich and opening new loopholes for them to dodge paying their fair share through corporate fronts.

Screw that..

You seem to be missing the point that by fixing the tax levels for trust and companies as well as addressing the depreciation etc on buildings they are not only closing loopholes, they are making it unattractive to use corporate fronts - essentially they will all be taxed at the same rate.

I/S - as is often the case - is a raving loon.

[mashman]

If the government keeps taking money off the "rich pricks", the mobility of their skills will eventually drive them to places where the cost of living is lower and they retain more of their income. This reduces the tax take available. It reduces the potential for further job creation, investment in companies and building on the economic wellbeing of the country as a whole.

I've heard this argument before, but in all honesty it's a crock of shit. The "rich" person only gets taxed on their income. If they leave, then their place will be taken by a competitor/entrepreneur etc... One who will pay exactly the same amount of taxation. Nothing changes other than the redistribution of the "rich" persons wealth... I can't believe people still buy that crap... that's the media and government scaremongering again.

[mashman]

For those who are struggling in this system, maybe they would be better served to ask and study how the better off are doing it?


sound advice for an economically run country... but what about those workers that helped to generate the wealth for the business owner. 9 times out of 10 they won't share in the profit, just another greedy rich prick wanting more money, because they had the idea, because they're at the top of the tree, because of their knowledge... what about those that actually do the work... i guess that's what happens when you live in a financial economy

[Edbear]

sound advice for an economically run country... but what about those workers that helped to generate the wealth for the business owner. 9 times out of 10 they won't share in the profit, just another greedy rich prick wanting more money, because they had the idea, because they're at the top of the tree, because of their knowledge... what about those that actually do the work... i guess that's what happens when you live in a financial economy

Sound advice for anyone my friend. Why aren't you the employer?

I have run in the past and am now running my own business. My son-in-law starting from scratch now runs his own successful business and has staff employed.

Anyone who thinks a business owner is a selfish rich prick taking advantage of his employess is completely ignorant of what it means to own and run a business. You get to work 24/7 instead of knocking off at 5pm and you work weekends, and you stress and worry about wages and the health of your staff who are necessary to the success of your business.

You have sacrificed, time, money and resources to build a business for teh future and you are constantly aware of your competitors who may have deeper pockets than you have. Your wife and children have been neglected due to the needs of your business as you try to get it firmly established. You worry about how to tell your staff to work harder as they sneak time and put forth less effort than they should, costing you money you can't really afford.

Employees need to appreciate that they are the key to whether a business succeeds or fails and if they bring the business down and are laid off, they lose less than the owner does. An employee who works hard for the success of the company will be highly valued and appreciated and the owner will look for when they can reward them.

[James Deuce]

dont be fooled into thinking that your personal tax would be lower

That's an important point to remember. At this stage the only change in personal tax rates is the top one paid on earnings over $60k. Income tax on earnings over $60k will drop 5%. Whoopee.

[rainman]

If the government keeps taking money off the "rich pricks", the mobility of their skills will eventually drive them to places where the cost of living is lower and they retain more of their income.

I recall seeing some stats recently that showed that most migration to Aussie in recent years was low-wage, which would rather squash that theory - can't find it now, will have to hunt around.


You know what I find interesting? In any economy, particularly any Western economy, there are always the rich and the poor and the "middle class".

The one's making money will always make money and the one's living on the bones of their bum will always live on the bones of their bum.

Yup, such is capitalism, and such are people. But I think there may be other factors at work besides natural variability in human temperament that cause there to be 1000 billionaires and 5 billion people on $10/day. It's systemic - y'know, the rich get richer, the poor poorer? The rest of your post is good.


You seem to be missing the point that by fixing the tax levels for trust and companies as well as addressing the depreciation etc on buildings they are not only closing loopholes, they are making it unattractive to use corporate fronts - essentially they will all be taxed at the same rate.

I/S - as is often the case - is a raving loon.

I confess I tossed that out as bait without having read the TWG report (still wading through it). I do like the elimination of incentives like the CGT and LAQC reform (but the devil's in the details and I will reserve endorsement until I see them). I think I/S's point was targeted at the lower top personal tax rate offset by added GST - which is rather in favour of the rich pricks among us.

And I/S is, in my opinion, one of the sanest commentators on NZ politics there is.

[peasea]

Jesus saves, Moses invests but only Buddah pays dividends.

Grow shitloads of pot, make heaps, retire. Simple.

[The Stranger]

What are your thoughts !!!!!


"This is inherently unfair to the wage and salary earner who is then left to bear a disproportionate share of the personal tax burden."

Way I see it is wage and salary earners are the only ones who pay tax anyway, so it doesn't matter how you skin it.
My business effectively collects tax from others to give to the government. The people it collects tax from is wage and salary earners.
So who pays that tax?
GST though, I figure that catches the black market so I'm all for it.
Capital gains tax, well, if I can't get an adequate return on a rental I'll put the rent up to market value, so the wage and salary earner (tenants) will once again be paying.

Best idea I can see to make it "fairer" is to reduce govt spending.

[Shadows]

Sounds great to me.

The extra I get in my hand to use as I see fit instead of propping up the knuckledraggers in South Auckland is more than 5 times greater than the increase in GST I'll be paying on my current level of consumption.

I'm sick of spending so much of my time working to support useless cunts that the world would be better off without when I could be working to secure my own family's future. I've always wondered why I should work my fucking arse off and deal with all the stress so that they can sit around without a worry in the world, drink piss, protest about how hard done by they are, and beat their ever expanding menagerie of equally worthless children.

[JimO]

Sounds great to me.

The extra I get in my hand to use as I see fit instead of propping up the knuckledraggers in South Auckland is more than 5 times greater than the increase in GST I'll be paying on my current level of consumption.

I'm sick of spending so much of my time working to support useless cunts that the world would be better off without when I could be working to secure my own family's future. I've always wondered why I should work my fucking arse off and deal with all the stress so that they can sit around without a worry in the world, drink piss, protest about how hard done by they are, and beat their ever expanding menagerie of equally worthless children.

you wont get any extra in your hand.................food will go up, fuel will go up, rates will go up. acc will go up

[rainman]

Best idea I can see to make it "fairer" is to reduce govt spending.

Pretend you're PM. What would you cut, and how would you deal with the consequences?


The extra I get in my hand to use as I see fit instead of propping up the knuckledraggers in South Auckland is more than 5 times greater than the increase in GST I'll be paying on my current level of consumption.


Leaving aside your stereotype about knuckledraggers, what would you do with said beneficiaries? Like it or not, there are circumstances when we don't have full employment (cough recession cough), and this is usually not the fault of the beneficiaries. What would you do to them and their kids then? How would you manage crime?

I'm non-ideological about this: seriously, I'm open-minded about big govt vs little govt per se, and I've seen both welfare state and every-man-for-himself. I know lots of libertarian idiots who reflexively spout anti-welfare, anti-govt slogans; I know far fewer libertarians who think through the issues before engaging their mouths. Which are you?

[Blackflagged]

Are high Sales tax Countrys the most successful?
Online sellers in America, will be one of the winners, from raising GST in New Zealand.
But on the brightside, of a recent 10 point state of the economy survey compaired to Australia,we beat them on one. More McDonalds per head than Australia!

[davebullet]

In the article

"...said English. "And given that we face another six years of Budget deficits, they need to be broadly fiscally neutral." "

And there in lies the goal. Overall, the Government wants more taxes out of us to cover the next 6 years of deficits forecast. It is that simple. Sure some might pay less, but the majority will pay more.

What is the "low rate land tax" proposal?

[ckai]

Most of it has some logic but one of the ideas of personal tax is to try and narrow the gap between the rich and poor. Raising GST will totally kick this is the ass. Because it's a "flat tax" poor people will pay a higher percentage of their income towards it compared with the rich. Off setting it with lower personal tax kinda seems like they're not changing much at all. "You give me 2x $1 and I'll give you a $2 coin". Of course , it's not gonna be like this.

The skeptic in me says they're telling us it's broke because they want me money. It'll be interesting to see what economists think of it. I remember, years and years ago, in economics at uni, looking into lowering the GST to 10% and seeing how much more money the gov't would earn from increase spending.

But most can't see how you can make more tax income from lower sales tax.

I'm open to change, as long as I'm not any worse off. Gotta feed the family and all.

[The Stranger]

Pretend you're PM. What would you cut, and how would you deal with the consequences?



My contention is that the burden is always going to fall on Salary and wage earners no matter how they divy things up. If they (the govt) seek to make it (the burden) less unfair then it is up to them how they go about reducing spending.
It's not my problem to deal with, I'm not the one seeking to make things less unfair.

[rainman]

My contention is that the burden is always going to fall on Salary and wage earners no matter how they divy things up. If they (the govt) seek to make it (the burden) less unfair then it is up to them how they go about reducing spending.
It's not my problem to deal with, I'm not the one seeking to make things less unfair.

Problem is unfair is a relative term.

The low wage earner getting hit with more GST so that he can pay for the tax cut of the high wage earner (that's "neutrality") will say it's unfair.
The high wage earner paying more than the low wage earner for the "lazy knuckledraggers" or whatever will say that's unfair.
Both are, relatively, right.

Justice is complex, we've been arguing it for centuries. The right is more business friendly/employee unfriendly, so don't have a problem screwing the little guy to give more to the fat cats. The left doesn't like the rich pricks. Problem is that this is a sideshow conflict - between the middle class and the genuinely poor, hating on each other - when the real issue is the really, really, weathy elites. The middle class get a lot of smoke and sunshine blown up their arses along the lines of "you too can be one of the elites' (you can't, basically) and the poor are kept in line by having little power, a hint of the same bullshit dream about improving their lot, and panem et bloody circenses.

Market thinking makes us compete with our fellows for everything these days, and consequently desensitises us to our common humanity. It won't end well, I suspect.

[EJK]

Not a bad idea! Lowering income tax is definitely a goodie.

[Naki Rat]

Are high Sales tax Countrys the most successful?
Online sellers in America, will be one of the winners, from raising GST in New Zealand.
But on the brightside, of a recent 10 point state of the economy survey compaired to Australia,we beat them on one. More McDonalds per head than Australia!

Sure international online sales will benefit, but I suspect the current GST free import allowance may reduce. Much of our meager consumption is via Trade Me and the like from non GST-registered secondhand sellers (individuals) and their prices won't change appreciably.

As someone earlier said, GST increases are focussed on massed consumption and if one doesn't partake of the flood of consumerist crap that many seem to regard as 'necessities' then that person is on the gain when GST rises.

Less tax for both individuals and companies is the key to giving NZ's sluggish productivity a well deserved boot in the arse. Gets my tick.

[geoffm]

As a middle clas wage earner, i will get screwed over ... again. Along with all the taxes the Nats have put on (ACC, petrol, ETS adn any others i have missed) we now get the privildege of paying more GST on them as well.
Lower income tax? nice theory, but it won't work - fiscal drag (Cullen and Muldoons bestest friend) will take care of that. As the income tax bands aren't inflation indexed, inflation pushes everyone up until they are "rich pricks" and a few years down the track we ahve all the new taxes, and all the old ones too.
30,000 kiwis go to Oz each year - i wonder why? THis isn't going to change it.
Geoff

[The Stranger]

Problem is unfair is a relative term.


Sure it is, but it wasn't "my" term.
As to the rest of your tale, I agree with much of it up to the point about the real issue being the really really wealthy elites. You kind of lost me there.
Why are they an issue. I mean, I know of a guy who bought a motor camp in the BOI, razed it and built 3 huge houses, put in a flood lit tennis court and a heli pad, built a floating dock and has more toys there than the average resort. And that's just a holiday pad.
I do know he provides employment for a great many people and thus many families are fed and it saves us having to pay out a stack of dole money instead. If he didn't provide that employment who would?
What harm is he doing?
Just wondering is all, hey shit, I sure wouldn't mind having his fortune, but I don't begrudge him it either.

[rainman]

Why are they an issue.

Good question, kinda depends on whether you view wealth as accumulation of monetary tickets or as something related to actual, finite, resources, and power over them. Difference then being one of these is a zero-sum game (albeit a bit fuzzy as we don't have perfect information about resources).

Here's a thought experiment:
Imagine we had a single world economy/currency, one central bank, etc. First day in business the shiny new world govt issues everyone a million billion trillion zillion credits - we'd all be rich, right? And, approximately, equally so - as any former wealth or lack thereof would fade into insignificance. Except we wouldn't, nothing much would change for the peasant or the investment banker, relatively speaking. Money alone does not make wealth.

Wealth is the abundance of (and possession, and control over) valuable resources. Now if you believe these are infinite, best of luck, we can leave this discussion here - but I'm sure you agree this is not the case. Therefore wealth accumulation is broadly a zero-sum game, and there is a need to establish what is a "fair share", particularly in a world of increasing population. If I take and control more than my "fair share", someone else loses out. My power and influence increases, theirs wanes... Rinse and repeat for several thousand years, add various levels of obscure cultural, religious, financial and societal abstractions, operated by creatures with brains that don't perceive space and time well at the large scale (we don't even relate to our fellows sensibly in large groups), and what you end up with is a world where very few massively exploit the rest. By which I mean, exercise their power over others for personal benefit, and not in recognition of the equality and freedoms of the exploitee.

It's a matter of degree. I'm sure there are lots of fundamentally decent rich folks who have earned their way to the top. But there are even more fundamentally decent poor folks who can never get there no matter what they do, and a metric shitload of the "entitled" who have ended up wealthy owing to the happy accidents of history, recent or distant.

1000 billionaires, 5 billion+ on $10 a day or less. Kids dying in poverty, all the problems we all know about and no-one wants to think about? Leaves me open to consider maybe obscene wealth does do more harm than good.

(I don't begrudge people being rewarded for genuine hard work, btw. How'd your mate come by his money?)

[Shadows]

you wont get any extra in your hand.................food will go up, fuel will go up, rates will go up. acc will go up

Only by 2.2% if GST increases to 15%. By comparision what was the CPI for last year? 2% or something?

One only loses if the full tax reduction is pissed against the wall. That's the whole idea.

[Shadows]

Leaving aside your stereotype about knuckledraggers, what would you do with said beneficiaries? Like it or not, there are circumstances when we don't have full employment (cough recession cough), and this is usually not the fault of the beneficiaries. What would you do to them and their kids then? How would you manage crime?

Work for the benefit on state run projects. Work fucking hard. Every other cunt is paying your way so they'd better get something for their money. Plenty of gorse covered hillsides around. Plenty of conservation / restoration projects on the go. Plenty of potholes / tagging / glass on the beach. I hear KiwiRail could use some track maintenance. Etc. etc. etc. you get the idea. A real job would be like a holiday which is plenty of motivation to get one.

Don't turn up to work when you aren't in possession of a medical certificate or at a job interview, you fend for yourself. Good luck with that, you get no help from the state for doing nothing in return and you'd better not get done for neglecting your kids as a result either. Do turn up, your kids get looked after for the whole 12 hours that you're working to benefit the rest of the community and you are granted your standard food parcel and petrol vouchers for the week. Your rent, electricity, insurance, healthcare etc. is invoiced directly to the state. Anything else that crops up you will need to apply for. No cash to waste on pokies or housie, to give to the fucking church, or send back to the islands - no cigarettes, no piss, no KFC, nothing but what you need to survive, have a roof over your head, and get to interviews for real jobs to earn money you then have the right to use as you wish.

Crime - if I was in charge, firstly there would be a number of law changes allowing freedom of choice, secondly there would be a number of law changes making penalties so harsh that people would be too terrified to commit crimes against others, and if they did, they would suffer the full penalty of law without exception. After a judge or jury delivered a verdict the resulting sentence would be mandatory and in the worst cases terminal. Convicted criminals not born in NZ would be deported along with their families.

[Str8 Jacket]

Only by 2.2% if GST increases to 15%. By comparision what was the CPI for last year? 2% or something?

One only loses if the full tax reduction is pissed against the wall. That's the whole idea.

Yes but the cost of everything will be passed on from the manufacturer, to the freight company, to the shop and then eventually to the customer so we'll more likely be paying almost double on some items than we would normally be doing say now....

[PrincessBandit]

but not everyone that buys food has a job. Let alone getting the food from those fuckin vans that charge a fortune... in an ideal world, money wouldn't exist!

Welcome to Star Trek...


Sounds great to me.

The extra I get in my hand to use as I see fit instead of propping up the knuckledraggers in South Auckland is more than 5 times greater than the increase in GST I'll be paying on my current level of consumption.

I'm sick of spending so much of my time working to support useless cunts that the world would be better off without when I could be working to secure my own family's future. I've always wondered why I should work my fucking arse off and deal with all the stress so that they can sit around without a worry in the world, drink piss, protest about how hard done by they are, and beat their ever expanding menagerie of equally worthless children.

Ouch, that's a bit harsh on some of us who live in S A.


Generally I think the suggestions being put forward re tax, GST, etc are good. However there will always be those who know how to work the system to their advantage (and some of the "knuckledraggers" are right up there with the fat cats). No matter how many loopholes are closed in order to combat those rort-meisters, they'll come up with other ingenious ways to continue as they always have.

[James Deuce]

The majority of wage and salary earners won't be getting a tax cut. GST will go up. With a property tax and a GST increase rents will increase a minimum of 10%. If you think any Government anywhere will promote tax change that actually makes voters better off you're all barking mad. They'll tell you you're better off and you'll be left wondering why you're struggling a little bit harder than you were before.

The actual amount of money available to be spent by consumers will diminish significantly.

[The Stranger]

Here's a thought experiment:
Imagine we had a single world economy/currency, one central bank, etc. First day in business the shiny new world govt issues everyone a million billion trillion zillion credits - we'd all be rich, right?

(I don't begrudge people being rewarded for genuine hard work, btw. How'd your mate come by his money?)

Why limit it to a thought experiment? It's been done before, albeit on a smaller scale.
Can't remember the exact details now as it was too long ago, but many many people wound up with shares in the power companies. In the area I was in at the time the brokers etc were valuing the power co at x. Within a very short space of time most had sold thinking they were doing ok at 2x, not long after it was 4x and if my memory serves me correctly it just kept going up, but very few had their shares after about 4x.
Point I am trying to make is, even with an even distribution of wealth opertunity, foresight, greed, dumb luck etc will ensure it's redistributed, you can't stop that, and you will never tax it "right" (assuming it is in fact wrong)

Interesting perspectives there though thank you rainman

The person to which I refer is not a mate just someone I know of as he bought the motor camp I used to go to a lot as a kid. He is a well known businessman, but that's his business.

[MisterD]

I think I/S's point was targeted at the lower top personal tax rate offset by added GST - which is rather in favour of the rich pricks among us.

Defining "rich prick" as someone on PAYE earning more than $70k is a bit strong don't you think? The point is (ably made by Gareth Morgan this morning) that the current tax regime unfairly clobbers the middle whilst allowing the real big earners to exploit massive f-ing loopholes.


And I/S is, in my opinion, one of the sanest commentators on NZ politics there is.

Ha ha ha ha....I suppose it's possible to look sane when there's the Stranded to be compared with...

[Edbear]

Yup, such is capitalism, and such are people. But I think there may be other factors at work besides natural variability in human temperament that cause there to be 1000 billionaires and 5 billion people on $10/day. It's systemic - y'know, the rich get richer, the poor poorer? The rest of your post is good..

It is systemic to an extent but an economy can be managed in a fairer way. In the end, though, much of where a person lives in the economic strata is up to the individual who as an adult has the power to change themselves and improve their lot.


As a middle clas wage earner, i will get screwed over ... again. Along with all the taxes the Nats have put on (ACC, petrol, ETS adn any others i have missed) we now get the privildege of paying more GST on them as well.
Lower income tax? nice theory, but it won't work - fiscal drag (Cullen and Muldoons bestest friend) will take care of that. As the income tax bands aren't inflation indexed, inflation pushes everyone up until they are "rich pricks" and a few years down the track we ahve all the new taxes, and all the old ones too.
30,000 kiwis go to Oz each year - i wonder why? THis isn't going to change it.
Geoff


Defining "rich prick" as someone on PAYE earning more than $70k is a bit strong don't you think? The point is (ably made by Gareth Morgan this morning) that the current tax regime unfairly clobbers the middle whilst allowing the real big earners to exploit massive f-ing loopholes.
...

I thought Gareth's interview was interesting and I feel he was correct.

[James Deuce]

It is systemic to an extent but an economy can be managed in a fairer way. In the end, though, much of where a person lives in the economic strata is up to the individual who as an adult has the power to change themselves and improve their lot.



That is always held up as a truism and it simply isn't true. One of the big lies of Western Civilisation is you can be anything you "want" to be. You can't. You should be exceptionally good at what you can achieve, not always lusting after something unattainable.

[Edbear]

That is always held up as a truism and it simply isn't true. One of the big lies of Western Civilisation is you can be anything you "want" to be. You can't. You should be exceptionally good at what you can achieve, not always lusting after something unattainable.

I wasn't saying you can be anything or anyone you want, as Clint Eastwood once said, (at least I think it was him), "One needs to know one's limitations!"

But we are all products of our history and environment. The big advantage of being a human, is that we have the power to change ourselves and our circumstances, (in most cases), and be better than our past.

My point, really, is that too many are "trapped in their past" and do not have the drive or motivation to change themselves or their circumstances and far too many expect someone else to do it for them. It takes effort, persistent effort to do something about yourself and your situation, and too few are willing to keep at it unbtil they succeed.

When my kids were young and they had to do the dishes, they would often complain, "I can't get this pot clean!" Of course they could, they just wanted it come clean with the effort they were prepared to put in and if it took longer or more effort, they "couldn't do it".

Ask anyone who has succeeded, and they will have done whatever it took for as long as it took to succeed.

[James Deuce]

I wasn't saying you can be anything or anyone you want, as Clint Eastwood once said, (at least I think it was him), "One needs to know one's limitations!"

But we are all products of our history and environment. The big advantage of being a human, is that we have the power to change ourselves and our circumstances, (in most cases), and be better than our past.

My point, really, is that too many are "trapped in their past" and do not have the drive or motivation to change themselves or their circumstances and far too many expect someone else to do it for them. It takes effort, persistent effort to do something about yourself and your situation, and too few are willing to keep at it unbtil they succeed.

When my kids were young and they had to do the dishes, they would often complain, "I can't get this pot clean!" Of course they could, they just wanted it come clean with the effort they were prepared to put in and if it took longer or more effort, they "couldn't do it".

Ask anyone who has succeeded, and they will have done whatever it took for as long as it took to succeed.

That's judged entirely by YOUR criteria with your expectations and desires filtering any reasonable response that pertains an individual's situation.

[Edbear]

That's judged entirely by YOUR criteria with your expectations and desires filtering any reasonable response that pertains an individual's situation.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Perhaps you could elaborate?

[mashman]

Sound advice for anyone my friend. Why aren't you the employer?

I have run in the past and am now running my own business. My son-in-law starting from scratch now runs his own successful business and has staff employed.

Anyone who thinks a business owner is a selfish rich prick taking advantage of his employess is completely ignorant of what it means to own and run a business. You get to work 24/7 instead of knocking off at 5pm and you work weekends, and you stress and worry about wages and the health of your staff who are necessary to the success of your business.

You have sacrificed, time, money and resources to build a business for teh future and you are constantly aware of your competitors who may have deeper pockets than you have. Your wife and children have been neglected due to the needs of your business as you try to get it firmly established. You worry about how to tell your staff to work harder as they sneak time and put forth less effort than they should, costing you money you can't really afford.

Employees need to appreciate that they are the key to whether a business succeeds or fails and if they bring the business down and are laid off, they lose less than the owner does. An employee who works hard for the success of the company will be highly valued and appreciated and the owner will look for when they can reward them.

I'm not the employer for the exact same reasons you list after that as to what it takes. I'm a family man, plain and simple, 3 young daughters that need attention etc... Unfortunately though i've been part of ventures that went tits and each time (read 3 times) there's always been a rich prick just feathering his nest, only caring about the $$$, not building a company, but raping it so that they can reap the benefits of tax loopholes... That's how a lot of businesses are run these days, measured by the amount of profit, with no care or attention paid to staff retention or the efforts being put in... Plenty of reasons why I don't, but who knows, when the girls are all at school it may well be time to start thinking about "securing" their future.

[James Deuce]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Perhaps you could elaborate?
No. I'm tired of having to make undignified replies to satisy curious bystanders.

[mashman]

Here's a thought experiment:
Imagine we had a single world economy/currency, one central bank, etc. First day in business the shiny new world govt issues everyone a million billion trillion zillion credits - we'd all be rich, right? And, approximately, equally so - as any former wealth or lack thereof would fade into insignificance. Except we wouldn't, nothing much would change for the peasant or the investment banker, relatively speaking. Money alone does not make wealth.


I remember this from a discussion i had with my economics teacher years ago. Everyone would instantly stop working, miller time even. No carers, doctors, police, nothing, no food production, it all just ends badly as you point out. To get people back to work, the producers of milk up the price to 1 trillion dollars, same with bread makers, veggie growers, fuel etc... A financial economy can never be a fair system.

[mashman]

Ask anyone who has succeeded, and they will have done whatever it took for as long as it took to succeed.

That's a HUGE part of the problem though. You're brought up to value money. You're brought up to realise that you need money to live. You're brought and eventually have your own wants and needs. How do you get the things you want and need? Fill in the blanks yourself, for how you would get there.

BUT, there are plenty of people who just want money and power. There are simple games that you can play, i've seen friends do it, talk a good game, get a job, do a good job, get a pay rise, leave for another job with your new impressive cv and of course for more money, repeat for 20 years... bingo, retired by 40. Most, i would say, learn next to nothing and those that make it that far just don't stop... you end up with rich twats at the top of the tree with no experience, making shitty decisions that screw over billions of people, but as long as they get their bonus, ya know the bonuses that could build, furnish and staff a new hospital, then it's all good, they're doing a good job... The secret is to talk a good game. And if you've worked that out, then screw the life of bouncing from job to job and just become a politician...

I have no doubt that there are people out there who have worked, worried and generally been good people to get where they are and good on them, but the flip side screws the world over.

But that's just my take on it...

[Tank]

That's a HUGE part of the problem though. You're brought up to value money. You're brought up to realise that you need money to live. You're brought and eventually have your own wants and needs. How do you get the things you want and need? Fill in the blanks yourself, for how you would get there.

BUT, there are plenty of people who just want money and power. There are simple games that you can play, i've seen friends do it, talk a good game, get a job, do a good job, get a pay rise, leave for another job with your new impressive cv and of course for more money, repeat for 20 years... bingo, retired by 40. Most, i would say, learn next to nothing and those that make it that far just don't stop... you end up with rich twats at the top of the tree with no experience, making shitty decisions that screw over billions of people, but as long as they get their bonus, ya know the bonuses that could build, furnish and staff a new hospital, then it's all good, they're doing a good job... The secret is to talk a good game. And if you've worked that out, then screw the life of bouncing from job to job and just become a politician...

I have no doubt that there are people out there who have worked, worried and generally been good people to get where they are and good on them, but the flip side screws the world over.

But that's just my take on it...

People who subscribe to that whought process are generally people that never made it. They are looking up from the bottom generally thinking that they know it all and far more than the guy at the top.

Rarley do they understand the full picture, or understand all the drivers - they all seem to think that they can do the job of a CEO just by 'talking a good game' and having pretty hair.

Its a ignorant argument. God forbid that the leaders of industry actually know something and contribute to the sucess of their businesses that give jobs to the billions of people you seem to think that they are screwing.

More business suceed because of them - not despite of them. Id also bet that most business if they were to swap the CEO for the 'know it all' on the shop floor would be broke in a few months.

[rainman]

The secret is to talk a good game.


People who subscribe to that whought process are generally people that never made it. They are looking up from the bottom generally thinking that they know it all and far more than the guy at the top.

Rarley do they understand the full picture, or understand all the drivers - they all seem to think that they can do the job of a CEO just by 'talking a good game' and having pretty hair.

Its a ignorant argument. God forbid that the leaders of industry actually know something and contribute to the sucess of their businesses that give jobs to the billions of people you seem to think that they are screwing.

More business suceed because of them - not despite of them. Id also bet that most business if they were to swap the CEO for the 'know it all' on the shop floor would be broke in a few months.

IMHO, you're both right, to a degree. I'm sure there are CEOs that are close to the ideal, are talented and hard-working etc, but there's not a lot of them. Particularly in NZ. I've worked in management positions (some fairly senior) in many companies, and can count on the fingers of one finger the number of genuinely good people in top management I've come across. Actualy that's a bit harsh: one brilliant guy at least, and a few I would call not completely terrible. But I've come across a large number of unprincipled, selfish, dishonest, scheming, mean, ... bastards who do not even slightly fit the ideal mould you describe. All "successful", by and large. And the good guys? Mostly got screwed over by bastards higher up than them in the end. One guy was made to do all the dirty work in the local company, at great personal cost to his conscience, before the Aussie top management pushed him out the door. And if it's not higher management that drives this it's often competition.

Corporations have no conscience. Globalised capitalism as it is today is a race to the bottom, for most of us.

[mashman]

People who subscribe to that whought process are generally people that never made it. They are looking up from the bottom generally thinking that they know it all and far more than the guy at the top. Rarley do they understand the full picture, or understand all the drivers - they all seem to think that they can do the job of a CEO just by 'talking a good game' and having pretty hair.

Maybe that's generally the case, but I think this way for my own reasons, not through misguided envy or carrying a chip on my shoulder about what someone else has achieved... moreover knowing that sometimes there's a little lord fontleroy at the top that doesn't have the first clue about what they're doing, got there on a wink and a smile, greased a few palms, talked a good game, looks great on TV... It happen ya know. I realise that a CEO does more than just play golf and fanny around all day.


Its a ignorant argument. God forbid that the leaders of industry actually know something and contribute to the sucess of their businesses that give jobs to the billions of people you seem to think that they are screwing.

It's an ignorant argument if you use it in your context. But, that being the case, where did all of the money go that caused the recession, i mean, why did the US car manufacturing industry nearly fail, banks, real estate etc... how could that have happened with all of those successful people at the wheel, how come noone saw it coming, playing with the money (and lives) of billions of people. Someone made a serious faux pas. One guy in the UK, a banker no less, lost 24 billion POUNDS, got asked to leave and is now living on a pension of 690,000 pounds a year... So run the ignorant argument by me again! I fear it's all contextual or trolling...


More business suceed because of them - not despite of them. Id also bet that most business if they were to swap the CEO for the 'know it all' on the shop floor would be broke in a few months.

Very true again. But if you put the "know it all" (who may well be right) and the CEO together... it might change the business for the better... but MOST large businesses have layers of management that keep the 2 apart... so the shop floor gets lost in the eyes of the CEO because he has ???capable??? management that informs him/her of how the business is doing... that's really my context i guess... and if the bottom line is healthy, who really gives a shit!

Again, my opinion is all based on what i've seen and sometimes what i've personally experienced...

[mashman]

IMHO, you're both right, to a degree. I'm sure there are CEOs that are close to the ideal, are talented and hard-working etc, but there's not a lot of them. Particularly in NZ. I've worked in management positions (some fairly senior) in many companies, and can count on the fingers of one finger the number of genuinely good people in top management I've come across. Actualy that's a bit harsh: one brilliant guy at least, and a few I would call not completely terrible. But I've come across a large number of unprincipled, selfish, dishonest, scheming, mean, ... bastards who do not even slightly fit the ideal mould you describe. All "successful", by and large. And the good guys? Mostly got screwed over by bastards higher up than them in the end. One guy was made to do all the dirty work in the local company, at great personal cost to his conscience, before the Aussie top management pushed him out the door. And if it's not higher management that drives this it's often competition.

Corporations have no conscience. Globalised capitalism as it is today is a race to the bottom, for most of us.

damn, i woulda just said what he said...

[Drunken Monkey]

how come noone saw it coming, playing with the money (and lives) of billions of people.

Lots of people saw it coming, not just leading economists. Most people just ignored their warnings. The super rich didn't get super rich by jumping out of markets early all their lives.

[mashman]

Lots of people saw it coming, not just leading economists. Most people just ignored their warnings. The super rich didn't get super rich by jumping out of markets early all their lives.

ha ha ha, love it... quickly, a mouse just farted in Uzbekistan SELL SELL SELL... must be a bitch when yer down to yer last billion

[Pascal]

But, that being the case, where did all of the money go that caused the recession ...

Governmental interference in normal, capitalist systems. As to some of the earlier posts, far too few people are willing to accept personal responsibilty for their lives. Here in New Zealand governmental assistance has become endemic to the point that people are expecting it. It has become a culture and a lifestyle, rather than a safety net. You need only look at young people like dear old Dean to see the effect this has.

It wasn't always like that. My great grandfather made his living doing manual labour earning a pittance. His son became a train driver and did reasonably well for himself. And his son qualified as a mechanical engineer and my dad, whilst not rich, has taken good care of his money, invested where possible and worked hard at giving me the best possible chances. I'm a, if you believe my bussiness card, a "Bussiness Intelligence Specialist" and I would qualify as a "rich prick" according to Rainthingy's definition. Never mind that my disposable income is less than a $1000 a month and that has to include food, simply because I fall outside the brackets for "Working for Families" or any form of state assistance, even though I pay through the nose for it.

Getting a bit sidetracked here ...

I moved to NZ in early 2001 from South Africa. I came here with a bit less than $7000 in my pocket which was the sum total of my material wealth. That money was used to start a small business which has been ticking over reasonably well and earns me enough spare capital to invest in my children's future. I also work for a living, between 10 and 14 hours a day. Now in the process of paying off a house, don't have Sky TV, don't eat out, etc. But I'm managing my money to pay off one mortage and, whilst one of my ancestors started off as a manual labourer I'm hoping that the work that has happened from his generation through to mine will give my children a better starting point.

A step up on the ladder.

If all goes well my daughters will likely inherit between 2 and 4 properties from my father and me, have a reasonable amount of capital to get them started on their lives.

There is nothing stopping anybody in NZ with all the government funded programs, education funding, interest free student loans or anything else from taking that type of approach. It is a rare person that becomes filthy rich overnight and you rarely have that happen without an equal amount of risk. But over time everybody can improve the lot of their families. It just takes DAMN HARD work.

Something that few people are willing to take on.

[duckonin]

Lots of people saw it coming, not just leading economists. Most people just ignored their warnings. The super rich didn't get super rich by jumping out of markets early all their lives.

Don-key has been jumping all his lfe, but only after others lead the jump..

[MisterD]

where did all of the money go that caused the recession,

The point with the "credit crisis" is that the money wasn't actually there in the first place...

[mashman]

The point with the "credit crisis" is that the money wasn't actually there in the first place...

fair enough... but more and more i'm finding it hard to believe that virtual money doesn't exist (as backwards as that sounds)... otherwise how does it have such a dramatic effect on businesses and peoples livelyhoods (the money hasn't gone if it wasn't there)? how can the rich actually buy things if the virtual money doesn't exist (asset valuation/credit blah blah)? A few years ago we had a debt write off amnesty in NZ... who paid for that? How about a global debt write off amnesty? How about removing money from the economy full stop/period for our americanized viewers? If money is so virtual, then what's the down side of doing without it?

Virtual money must be very VERY real to touch people and in some cases in a very devastating way, no?

[James Deuce]

Governmental interference in normal, capitalist systems. As to some of the earlier posts, far too few people are willing to accept personal responsibilty for their lives. Here in New Zealand governmental assistance has become endemic to the point that people are expecting it. It has become a culture and a lifestyle, rather than a safety net. You need only look at young people like dear old Dean to see the effect this has.


What a load of bollocks. Have you ever used it? Ever asked for it? Ever been part of the system? Ever been due something and tried to get it?

[steve_t]

The point with the "credit crisis" is that the money wasn't actually there in the first place...

Did anyone else have mates that asked "Why don't they just print more money?" when the credit crisis first happened? First there was stunned disbelief and then a roar of laughter. I felt sorry for the girl that asked a question like that in front of a big group of guys:eek5:

[Pascal]

What a load of bollocks. Have you ever used it? Ever asked for it? Ever been part of the system? Ever been due something and tried to get it?

Bollocks? Why? Because high levels of taxation under the previous government led to a whole new level of beneficiaries - effectively making normal, middle class familiies dependant on the state? (Working for Families)

[Ixion]

Did anyone else have mates that asked "Why don't they just print more money?" when the credit crisis first happened? First there was stunned disbelief and then a roar of laughter. I felt sorry for the girl that asked a question like that in front of a big group of guys:eek5:

Well, that is exactly what they have done. Of course, that was also what got us into the shit in the first place. That , and the March 2006 decision by the US Fed that they would no longer monitor M3. The graph says it all

EDIT. Very very crude explanation of graph : The grene and white curves represent real money. The stuff in your wallet. The grey and black curves represent money that never actually existed. Just numbers on paper. The black curve stops in march 2006 when the Fed stopped releasing figures. You can do your own extrapolation. Sooner or later the money bubble pops and the grey and black curves have to come back to reality.

[mashman]

Well, that is exactly what they have done. Of course, that was also what got us into the shit in the first place. That , and the March 2006 decision by the US Fed that they would no longer monitor M3. The graph says it all

EDIT. Very very crude explanation of graph : The grene and white curves represent real money. The stuff in your wallet. The grey and black curves represent money that never actually existed. Just numbers on paper. The black curve stops in march 2006 when the Fed stopped releasing figures. You can do your own extrapolation. Sooner or later the money bubble pops and the grey and black curves have to come back to reality.

WTF is M3? ooooook, found the wiki and :gob:

[Shadows]

Yes but the cost of everything will be passed on from the manufacturer, to the freight company, to the shop and then eventually to the customer so we'll more likely be paying almost double on some items than we would normally be doing say now....

Quite wrong. It doesn't snowball like that. A business claims the GST it is charged by it's suppliers back against the GST it charges on its sales, therefore reducing the business's overall GST exposure. GST is a tax on consumption - ie it only really impacts the consumer or businesses running at a loss (such as the LAQCs the Government is trying to target).

[Pascal]

Quite wrong. It doesn't snowball like that. A business claims the GST it is charged by it's suppliers back against the GST it charges on its sales, therefore reducing the business's overall GST exposure. GST is a tax on consumption - ie it only really impacts the consumer or businesses running at a loss (such as the LAQCs the Government is trying to target).

What happens to Acme Inc. making Widgets and turning a big profit? The GST on the profit from their sales they have to pay back to IRD. It is a cost they will pass on to their consumers.

[James Deuce]

Quite wrong. It doesn't snowball like that. A business claims the GST it is charged by it's suppliers back against the GST it charges on its sales, therefore reducing the business's overall GST exposure. GST is a tax on consumption - ie it only really impacts the consumer or businesses running at a loss (such as the LAQCs the Government is trying to target).
In theory.

[Shadows]

What happens to Acme Inc. making Widgets and turning a big profit? The GST on the profit from their sales they have to pay back to IRD. It is a cost they will pass on to their consumers.

GST is not a tax on profits, but on transactions, collected on those transactions on behalf of the government. Whatever rate it is at is largely irrelevant until it reaches the end consumer.

[steve_t]

WTF is M3? ooooook, found the wiki and :gob:

Found the wiki too. Holy shit!! Australia and NZ look to be keeping up :laugh: even though the definitions of M3 are slightly different. Looks like a cashless society could be coming sooner than we expect!

[Swoop]

If the gubbinment wishes to raise a bit more cash, start taxing the bloody religious corporations! Why the fuck are the "imaginary friends" a tax-free status??!


If you think any Government anywhere will promote tax change that actually makes voters better off you're all barking mad. They'll tell you you're better off and you'll be left wondering why you're struggling a little bit harder than you were before.
As the saying goes: "You can always tell when a politician is lying... their lips move!".

[steve_t]

If the gubbinment wishes to raise a bit more cash, start taxing the bloody religious corporations! Why the fuck are the "imaginary friends" a tax-free status??!



But then how would Bishop Brian Tamaki afford his multimillion dollar home and massive yacht with the "modest" income he takes from the church? I guess tithing is basically a tax for the religious so why should the government miss out on a cut of someone charging a tax?

[Winston001]

This discussion is looking at the wrong end IMHO. As a nation we focus on what the Government should do for us rather than what we can do for each other (to mangle JFK’s quote).

Wages and salaries are only possible if something is produced – and purchased - by someone else. To earn more money, more of the product must be produced. The average Australian worker produces ¼ more than a New Zealand worker. Interestingly Australian wages – and their exchange rate, are approximately 25% higher.

So we need to look at what we sell to the rest of the world and produce more of it per person. Tax rates become less interesting if you earn plenty each week.

[Winston001]

fair enough... but more and more i'm finding it hard to believe that virtual money doesn't exist (as backwards as that sounds)... otherwise how does it have such a dramatic effect on businesses and peoples livelyhoods (the money hasn't gone if it wasn't there)?

Quite right. It does exist in the sense that we all use it. Money is a measure of value. Your house has a value, so you borrow some money from the bank to buy a new bike. What if everyone in your town suddenly lost their jobs and had to sell their houses? What would yours be worth? Where did its "value" go?

The result is everyone becomes poorer.

[McJim]

This discussion is looking at the wrong end IMHO. As a nation we focus on what the Government should do for us rather than what we can do for each other (to mangle JFK’s quote).

Wages and salaries are only possible if something is produced – and purchased - by someone else. To earn more money, more of the product must be produced. The average Australian worker produces ¼ more than a New Zealand worker. Interestingly Australian wages – and their exchange rate, are approximately 25% higher.

So we need to look at what we sell to the rest of the world and produce more of it per person. Tax rates become less interesting if you earn plenty each week.


Quite right. It does exist in the sense that we all use it. Money is a measure of value. Your house has a value, so you borrow some money from the bank to buy a new bike. What if everyone in your town suddenly lost their jobs and had to sell their houses? What would yours be worth? Where did its "value" go?

The result is everyone becomes poorer.

Winston, you're making too much sense. Exactly how hard did you hit your head when you came off that bike of yours?:rofl:

[JimO]

Quite right. It does exist in the sense that we all use it. Money is a measure of value. Your house has a value, so you borrow some money from the bank to buy a new bike. What if everyone in your town suddenly lost their jobs and had to sell their houses? What would yours be worth? Where did its "value" go?

The result is everyone becomes poorer.


but you still have a new bike

[Winston001]

Winston, you're making too much sense. Exactly how hard did you hit your head when you came off that bike of yours?:rofl:

You Scottish blaggard, away wi ye. I'm on dial-up at the moment and canna waste kps on the likes of you. :D

[Winston001]

but you still have a new bike

Ah yes - and a new loan. Which might not be so easy to repay and no-one wants to buy the bike. That's what happened in a rough sort of way during the recession.

[Winston001]

An earlier poster queried the land tax proposal:

A land tax is very simple and logical. Lets say a rate of 1% per year but your family home is exempt.

You own a rental house worth $300,000. The annual land tax on that property is $3000.

If you can’t make enough money out of the house (bearing in mind that a lot of rentals have heavy mortgages) you sell. Land tax is an incentive to use land (apart from your home) efficiently or move along.

Farmers will scream – imagine the annual tax on a $2.5 million dairy farm. Not sure how family holiday homes which aren’t rented out would be treated.

[Blackflagged]

Commercial proberty Rates are nearly double that, of the Same value house.You get bugger all for it.This is not a business encouraging country.Unfortunatly Farms , can`t take there land with them, or i`m sure they would go somewere with less papper work and Taxes.
Your" wealthy local Diary owner",is going to have to pay alot more rent, with this land Tax,it won`t just hit the wealthy.

[mashman]

Quite right. It does exist in the sense that we all use it. Money is a measure of value. Your house has a value, so you borrow some money from the bank to buy a new bike. What if everyone in your town suddenly lost their jobs and had to sell their houses? What would yours be worth? Where did its "value" go?

The result is everyone becomes poorer.

So we all get fucked over to pay real money back to someone who hasn't lent us any real money to begin with... brilliant! money laundering without any capital layout...

[Winston001]

...... when the real issue is the really, really, weathy elites. The middle class get a lot of smoke and sunshine blown up their arses along the lines of "you too can be one of the elites' (you can't, basically) and the poor are kept in line by having little power......



I enjoy your posts but have to disagree with your contention that a few wealthy elite have (or will) control most resources and power. In fact its a signature of developed nations that this doesn't happen. It isn't allowed.

In NZ laws were created in the late 1880s (I think) to break up the huge land estates which had been accumulated by a few families. In the UK similar moves were made to break up centuries old family holdings. The favoured method is heavy death duties which forced heirs to sell. Indeed the combination of taxes against the wealthy in the UK once reached 105% - you paid more tax than you earned income.

Modern politicians and communities react strongly against too much wealth being accumulated in the hands of the few. I don't share your fears, although you make an interesting argument.

[Blackflagged]

The wealthy, are just the same as most people.They see it from there point of view, and look after there own interests.

[rainman]

I ... have to disagree with your contention that a few wealthy elite have (or will) control most resources and power. In fact its a signature of developed nations that this doesn't happen. It isn't allowed.

I suspect I probably overcooked my point a bit, so should clarify what I really think. But I'll do that tomorrow - it's late and I need to sleep.

[Hinny]

Here's George Carlin doing it for you in the first 1min16sec
<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cgps85scy1g&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

[Hinny]

If the gubbinment wishes to raise a bit more cash, start taxing the bloody religious corporations! Why the fuck are the "imaginary friends" a tax-free status??!

George has a good take on this as well.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeSSwKffj9o&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeSSwKffj9o&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>