"Bold steps" by the g'ment - changes announced at 2pm today [Archive]

Headbanger

9th February 2010, 10:39

I'd halve business tax and start putting together free land and tax packages for overseas companies, and I'd be getting regional councils in on the act. If we want a strong economy, strong employment, then we need strong companies, end of fuckin story.

And I'd be pushing immigrants out of Auckland to bolster up the dying regional towns.

Don't give a rats arse about personal tax or GST, they are just hoping to tax us until we break (or fuck off to Aussie) in order to support the welfare state and the grievance industry.

Working for Families is bullshit, I do quite well out of it and even I can see how retarded that shit is.

firefighter

9th February 2010, 10:45

I would probably lower the highest tax bracket to 30%, charge the beneficiaries 20% tax, and raise GST to 15%. I'd then remove all GST from fresh fruit and veges, and un-seasoned/processed meat.

Cereals etc of a pre-determined required minimal sugar level would also be GST free.

If Aussie can do it, we can do it better.

Also i'd get rid of fucken secondary tax. If someone wants to work an extra job, they'd no-longer be punished for doing it, and would pay a lower tax rate, by say 5% lower than their full-time job. Therefore those actually making an effort to help themselves out, can actually do so without losing most of it and it being a waste of time.

I'd lower business tax, with tax breaks for first year businesses, and throw this land/investment tax thingee being introduced into the bin. Just because you have rentals and you use your money wisely and work hard for your future, does'nt mean you should be fucked in the ass for it. (perhaps the g'ment wants you to do what your tenants are doing and HP a $20000 car and spend your money that way instead?)

Str8 Jacket

9th February 2010, 10:53

The readers opinion makes for interesting reading in the Stuff story.

Until Dokey makes the announements who knows what's going to happen. But I am willing to bet that they will shove the change through ASAP....

Tank

9th February 2010, 10:59

. But I am willing to bet that they will shove the change through ASAP....

They have already said that they are ready to go right after May budget - expect April 1 start.

Tank

9th February 2010, 11:00

The readers opinion makes for interesting reading in the Stuff story..

I find I dont read them - normally they are the unwashed and uninformed and they just wind me up.

firefighter

9th February 2010, 11:01

expect April 1 start.

Says it all really!

Ixion

9th February 2010, 11:03

They have already said that they are ready to go right after May budget - expect April 1 start.

I bet any tax reductions will be delayed a year. or 18 months. Timed to come in just before the next election. But any increase in GST will be near immediate.

How will low income earners (not beneficiaries, low paid WORKERS, those abused and forgotten folk) who do not have children, be compensated for a GST increase?

I expect that I personally will be quite happy with the announcements. But the measure of a government is not whether it makes people like me or you happy.

Ixion

9th February 2010, 11:04

I find I dont read them - normally they are the unwashed and uninformed and they just wind me up.

Representative of the unwashed and uninformed standing by for winding up duties , baas.

Str8 Jacket

9th February 2010, 11:11

I find I dont read them - normally they are the unwashed and uninformed and they just wind me up.

hehe, a bit like KB! It's a shame that they dont just put up peoples posts/opinions without moderating them first! ;)

mashman

9th February 2010, 11:12

Hmmmm, what would i do, hmmmm.... okay. I'd ban money, well remove the financial economy that we've all grown to love so much... off shoots should include, no need to have a taxation policy, everyone would be financially equal, crime would most likely drop to next to nothing, can't sell anything if there's no money. I'd introduce a task force to validate the necessity of businesses in the new financial less New Zealand.

Most likely financial institute employees, lawyers, accountants and businesses that provide no essential service to the country will be discontinued, or foreign companies would leave the country, what's the point in investment if there's no financial reward.

Un-employment would go through the roof. As there is no money this won't actually matter.

All i would ask in return is that NZ'ers would all work a 4 day 4 hours per day in their chosen field (that may need a little rework, but that'd be the aim, albeit you can train as a doctor/nurse/firefighter/police person/scientists/anything you fuckin like (skills you can use in a financial world should you wish to travel)). If you used to work in one of the financial institutes, help out a mate, take half of his working day and do it for him. If you know a farmer, take half of his working day. Food will still need to be produced, electricity will still need to be generated, as will any other "utility"...

No longer will a project be constrained by money and by default time. The infrastructure is in place, both governmental and communications wise, the emergency services will still be required, but if it's done correctly we could well become a self policing society. Don't get me wrong, people will still be people, but hopefully most of the idiots will settle given time and encouragement.

And so on and so on... I'd love to do a pros and cons list, but i can't find any cons!

Peace and love mutha fuckas!!!!!!

Mully

9th February 2010, 11:35

How will low income earners (not beneficiaries, low paid WORKERS, those abused and forgotten folk) who do not have children, be compensated for a GST increase?

How will those of us who are not "low paid" but are slogging the mortgage hard and therefore have little disposable income be compensated?

The trouble with raising GST and compensating beneficiaries (or anyone, for that matter) is that the cost (both in $$ and in admin) to compensate takes big chunks of the increased revenue.

As for what I'd do:
Keep tax write-offs for rental owners - insist on CGT being paid on sale (if they are "losing" money on the property, Capital Gain must be the reason for keeping it)
First $X of income is tax free (or tax rebatable)
No income tax on banked savings

As already said:
Secondary tax the same (or lower) than your primary tax rate
Lower the top tax rate and the business rate
Tax breaks for businesses starting (preference to NZ-owned businesses)

Ixion

9th February 2010, 11:38

How will those of us who are not "low paid" but are slogging the mortgage hard and therefore have little disposable income be compensated?

They would probably be 'compensated" by tax custs - lower taxes means more disposable income,- which the gubbermint then promptly takes back!. But at least they are no worse off.

slofox

9th February 2010, 11:40

what would YOU be doing if it was you having to make the decisions.

I'd give me $500,000, that's what...

Deano

9th February 2010, 11:56

Should the tax haven that are 'trusts' be abolished ?

That would get a lot of the rich paying their respective tax obligations wouldn't it or am I completely off track ?

I suspect it would never fly though cause most pollies and their mates would have money and assets in trusts.

Tank

9th February 2010, 12:12

Should the tax haven that are 'trusts' be abolished ?

That would get a lot of the rich paying their respective tax obligations wouldn't it or am I completely off track ?.

There are many benefits to trust - tax is just one of them. Nats are looking at dropping income tax rates to the same as trust to take away that incentive.

Funnily enough labour attacked this just last week (goofy Goffs speach about the rich pricks and using trust to avoid the tax they have to pay - how disgusting).

The real pisser was he forgot to ask how many of his own party do it:

Rick Barker
Barker Family Trust
Upton Family Trust

Brendon Burns
BP and PL Burns Family Trust
PL and BP Burns Family Trust

Steve Chadwick
Gonzo Family Trust

Charles Chauvel
Kittery Trust
Pepperrell Trust
Victory Trust

Helen Clark
Burke Trust
FG Clark Family Trust

Clayton Cosgrove
Eagle Bay Family Trust
September Trust (blind trust)

David Cunliffe
Bozzie Family Trust

Kelvin Davis
Davis Family Trust

Parekura Horomia
Panikau A2
Mangatuna 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8
Mangaheia 1B3Y and 2G1
Tokomaru K4A and K4B1 – trustee
Tuatini Maori Township section 1 block vi lot 2
Rosaleen Aorangi Smith Whanau Trust

Raymond Huo
Chesterfields Trust (family trust)

Shane Jones
Te Puna o Te Anaru Trust
Castlerigg Trust

Annette King
King-Lind Family Trust

Nanaia Mahuta
Mahuta Whānau Trust

Stuart Nash
Nash Family Trust

David Parker
Karitane Trust
Sue Wootton Family Trust
FD Parker Children’s Trust
Tarras Trust

Lynne Pillay
The Pillay Trust

Mita Ririnui
Ririnui-Calhoun Family Trust
Te Aomihi Anne Ririnui-Horne Family Trust
Riripiti Timi Waati Lands Trust
Te Arawa Lakes Trust
Ngati Awa Māori Trust Board
Pukeroa Oruawhata Lands Trust

Ross Robertson
The Robertson Family Trust

rainman

9th February 2010, 12:13

How will those of us who are not "low paid" but are slogging the mortgage hard and therefore have little disposable income be compensated?

Ummmmm... what a strange perspective. Rational decision making would just lead you to slog the mortgage a bit less hard. Why would you need compensating? It's like saying, I earn a lot but spend it all on burgers and gambling, I'd like a handout please!

BTW, I agree that both working hard and slogging the mortgage hard are in themselves good things. If the economic environment allows, that is.

Swoop

9th February 2010, 12:21

what a strange perspective. Rational decision making would just lead you to slog the mortgage a bit less hard.
So you prefer to be bled dry paying your mortgage for a much longer period? Paying off your mortgage should be near the top of your priorities if you want a retirement.

firefighter

9th February 2010, 12:21

Ummmmm... what a strange perspective. Rational decision making would just lead you to slog the mortgage a bit less hard. Why would you need compensating? It's like saying, I earn a lot but spend it all on burgers and gambling, I'd like a handout please!

BTW, I agree that both working hard and slogging the mortgage hard are in themselves good things. If the economic environment allows, that is.

Depends if he meant slogging, as in throwing all available money at it, or slogging, which i'm doing, which is just paying it with fuck-all left for myself.

Mully

9th February 2010, 12:27

Ummmmm... what a strange perspective. Rational decision making would just lead you to slog the mortgage a bit less hard. Why would you need compensating? It's like saying, I earn a lot but spend it all on burgers and gambling, I'd like a handout please!

Well, not exactly - we have made a decision to do it hard in the short term to kill the mortgage. Therby saving several years and a big whack of interest on it. If the Gummint chucks GST up, we will essentially have to stay in debt longer to survive.

If low income earners (the reason for them being low income earners is another complicated discussion) should be compensated, why shouldn't everyone be compensated.

And I know, the Gummint giveth and the Gummint taketh away - but lower taxes won't offset higher GST, land tax, higher ACC levies et al

Mully

9th February 2010, 12:28

Depends if he meant slogging, as in throwing all available money at it, or slogging, which i'm doing, which is just paying it with fuck-all left for myself.

Ah, the first one - it was a 25 year term that will be paid off in about 12

rainman

9th February 2010, 12:53

So you prefer to be bled dry paying your mortgage for a much longer period?

Um, no - read my last para again.

Depends if he meant slogging, as in throwing all available money at it, or slogging, which i'm doing, which is just paying it with fuck-all left for myself.

Indeed - if you are just managing to cover debts on your income, and the govt ups GST, this would be a bad thing. For you (but not for the really wealthy beneficiaries of the govt's re-distributive largesse, of course).

Well, not exactly - we have made a decision to do it hard in the short term to kill the mortgage. Therby saving several years and a big whack of interest on it. If the Gummint chucks GST up, we will essentially have to stay in debt longer to survive.

If low income earners (the reason for them being low income earners is another complicated discussion) should be compensated, why shouldn't everyone be compensated.

And I know, the Gummint giveth and the Gummint taketh away - but lower taxes won't offset higher GST, land tax, higher ACC levies et al

Because the government isn't necessarily acting in your best interests? Blue governments favour the rich, red ones the poor (sorta). A lot of people who fancy themselves rich are actually middle class. No-one favours them too much, despite what they might say.

Tank

9th February 2010, 13:42

Well - it looks like GST is going to be confirmed at 15% in May.

Tank

9th February 2010, 13:43

He mentioned across the board personal tax reductions - not just the top bracket.

Tank

9th February 2010, 13:44

confirmed that there will be no land tax

confirmed that there will be no capital gains tax

Tank

9th February 2010, 13:45

they are going review the whole "sickness benefit" scam - fucken brilliant. Watch the bludgers squeel

Tank

9th February 2010, 13:46

Reapplication requirements for those on the dole for an extended period

Work and training requirements for those on the DPB

Wow - they are really looking at the 'hand out culture' (note DPB is for over 6yos)

Ixion

9th February 2010, 13:47

The mountains have laboured and brought forth a ridiculous mouse.

Tank

9th February 2010, 13:47

Most government agencies to have no additional funding for several years - Unions will spit at that (as will the labour party)

Mully

9th February 2010, 13:48

confirmed that there will be no land tax

confirmed that there will be no capital gains tax

CGT wasn't required really - if you buy a house with the intention of making money, you should be paying tax on it when you sell. IRD have never really chased that.

Reapplication requirements for those on the dole for an extended period

Work and training requirements for those on the DPB

Wow - they are really looking at the 'hand out culture' (note DPB is for over 6yos)

No arguments here.

firefighter

9th February 2010, 13:51

allycatz

9th February 2010, 14:03

It's about time.

Training requirements or part time work (min 15 hours) for DPB with kids over seven has been in place for yonks

Miscreant

9th February 2010, 14:05

CGT wasn't required really - if you buy a house with the intention of making money, you should be paying tax on it when you sell. IRD have never really chased that.

Bush lawyer.
If you are buying and selling a house (or shares etc) as a business then you are liable for tax and the ird do go for you. Even on your family home. Buying a house or shares for a long term hold is not liable to tax and consequently the ird don't go after it.

firefighter

9th February 2010, 14:09

Training requirements or part time work (min 15 hours) for DPB with kids over seven has been in place for yonks

DPB for kids over 7..........excuse my ignorance but is that to supplement wages to help out single working mums, or is it a hand-out for those too comfortable at home to get off their arse and get a job and provide for their own off-spring? 5 year olds should be in school. What is the mum doing in the mean time if it's the latter?

edit; I just found out it is for hand-outs.

7 years old is waaaay too old, to be getting the DPB.......working for families yes, but not DPB. What exactly is 'training requirements'? Is that free education which will probably never be put into use which the nation has to pay for?

Tank

9th February 2010, 14:17

Just watching greens on TV - fuck me they are a joke - umm dont follow the g'ment - umm do green stuff.

Thats the problem with single issue watermelons.

golfmade

9th February 2010, 14:21

Do politicians down there get into fights in the legislature (or similar) defending their constituents?

Tank

9th February 2010, 14:22

Do politicians down there get into fights in the legislature (or similar) defending their constituents?

Mallard smacked a guy for teasing him about rooting a chick - does that count?

firefighter

9th February 2010, 14:23

Just watching greens on TV - fuck me they are a joke - umm dont follow the g'ment - umm do green stuff.

Thats the problem with single issue watermelons.

More to the point. Who are the fuck-knuckles voting for them and giving them a voice?

Tank

9th February 2010, 14:23

Greens commenting - investment in new roads is bad mkaaaay - they contribute to global warming.

Apparently they have not been reading the news lately. fucken greenies .

rainman

9th February 2010, 14:23

Just watching greens on TV - fuck me they are a joke - umm dont follow the g'ment - umm do green stuff.

Perhaps you should listen to what he's actually saying, not what your bigotry thinks he's saying...

Coldrider

9th February 2010, 14:24

Golfmade ,down here politicians steal your vote, then bash you for the next three years.

Tank

9th February 2010, 14:24

greens arguing that mum and dad should be able to take a few YEARS off with new baby - FUCK - who do they think is going to pay for all this?

firefighter

9th February 2010, 14:24

Mallard smacked a guy for teasing him about rooting a chick - does that count?

Probably the most sensible thing that's ever happened in parliament, I thought it was well deserved, and I was gutted he did'nt get away with it......(although not surprised, living in little old left-wing Zealand)

rainman

9th February 2010, 14:24

More to the point. Who are the fuck-knuckles voting for them and giving them a voice?

Um, that would be me. You got a problem with that?

golfmade

9th February 2010, 14:25

Mallard smacked a guy for teasing him about rooting a chick - does that count?

Hrm I suppose. Here in Taiwan they get into outright brawls in the legislature... although I think it's all staged anyways.

Tank

9th February 2010, 14:26

Probably the most sensible thing that's ever happened in parliament, I thought it was well deserved, and I was gutted he did'nt get away with it......(although not surprised, living in little old left-wing Zealand)

you forget that they were doing the same thing only a couple of weeks prior to a National member. If you cant take it - dont give it in the first place.

firefighter

9th February 2010, 14:27

Um, that would be me. You got a problem with that?

Redefining slow since 2006...says it all really.:done:

Tank

9th February 2010, 14:30

The green party pissed me off so much - Im going home tonight and cutting down a fucken tree. Then Im going for a thrash on the bike to burn some fossell fuels - just out of spite.

rainman

9th February 2010, 14:31

Reapplication requirements for those on the dole for an extended period

Yeah, 'cos it's really easy to get on the dole, and shuffling some more forms will make "dole bludgers" get jobs. Oh wait...

Work and training requirements for those on the DPB

I'd like to see training support for all unemployed. That's what Paula Bennett set up, isn't it? Oh wait...

they are going review the whole "sickness benefit" scam - fucken brilliant.

What makes sickness benefits a scam? I've only ever been on a benefit once, and that was sickness, for a short while. Wasn't easy, wasn't much, and I certainly didn't feel I was benefitting from a scam.

Well - it looks like GST is going to be confirmed at 15% in May.

Yay for National, that's what they campaigned on - more tax!!! Oh, wait...

He mentioned across the board personal tax reductions - not just the top bracket.

I will wait to see the details of that before believing a word of it. They have lied about this before.

Brian d marge

9th February 2010, 14:33

Grow dope !!! yeee haaaa
no tax , raise the price to cover the GST all good

I voted ten years ago , Life is good , 25 hr work week, can afford a house ( building a new one) have nice car and a few bikes ... no stress ( except from the wife )

OK its a bit of a drive to see anything green , but you cant eat scenery !

I can really see the IMF pushing their ideas here , privatization of ,,,almost everything , ACC being next as will the prisons

all of this will benefit overseas corporations and NOT New ZEALAND ( why you would put up with such sh!t is beyond me ,,,)

buy you produce locally , for cash , avoid the GST !

Stephen

Mully

9th February 2010, 14:35

Bush lawyer.
Buying a house or shares for a long term hold is not liable to tax and consequently the ird don't go after it.

What?

Why would you buy anything for a long term hold unless you were intending to sell it and make money?

http://www.ird.govt.nz/toii/property/check/property-check-pay-tax.html

Income earned from property sales is like any other income. You may have to pay income tax on it.

If you buy a property with the firm intention of selling it when prices rise, to make a gain from the increase in its value, the profit is likely to be taxable.

It is, of course, up to IRD to prove your intent - but then if you're claiming a tax "loss" on the investment, it's pretty hard to argue (with a straight face) that your intent wasn't to make money from a rise in the value. If it's your family home, you can't claim a tax loss.

EDIT: Unless you're talking about not selling it ever. In which case, you're quite correct - IRD wont go after an increase in the value in that instance. Sorry, crossed wires I think.

But then the income from that investment (shares or property) is taxable of course.

rainman

9th February 2010, 14:37

The green party pissed me off so much - Im going home tonight and cutting down a fucken tree. Then Im going for a thrash on the bike to burn some fossell fuels - just out of spite.

Yeah, that's real grown up.

Redefining slow since 2006...says it all really.:done:

Buddy, if you want to get into a IQ dick-measuring contest, all I will say is "bring it on" :)

all of this will benefit overseas corporations and NOT New ZEALAND ( why you would put up with such sh!t is beyond me ,,,)

Me too. Suppose this is where the word "sheeple" comes from.

Good to see Rodney on the telly now demonstrating his knowledge of science. Oh wait...

Tank

9th February 2010, 14:38

Yeah, 'cos it's really easy to get on the dole, and shuffling some more forms will make "dole bludgers" get jobs. Oh wait...

Im sure the labour model of just leaving them on it forever isnt helping anyone.

I'd like to see training support for all unemployed. That's what Paula Bennett set up, isn't it? Oh wait...

They dont need training - most of them just need a rocket up their arse to get a fucken job.

What makes sickness benefits a scam? I've only ever been on a benefit once, and that was sickness, for a short while. Wasn't easy, wasn't much, and I certainly didn't feel I was benefitting from a scam.

Because it has been shown that many are on it for life - they simply have moved the long term unemployed. Lets have SB for people who actually need it (not saying you didnt). But fucks that are on SB for 10 years because they smoke pot and are addicted and cannot work .

Yay for National, that's what they campaigned on - more tax!!! Oh, wait...
You missed where it is offset across the entire tax brackets - nett income for all will be up. You greenies miss a lot huh?

I will wait to see the details of that before believing a word of it. They have lied about this before.

Like the great global warming con. Parties in glass houses etc

Tank

9th February 2010, 14:40

Yeah, that's real grown up...

Nagh - its not. But hey I enjoy it and the tree was impacting my sea view. So - without it - Ill be adding value to my home. A fucken double win !!!!

rainman

9th February 2010, 14:52

Im sure the labour model of just leaving them on it forever isnt helping anyone.
...
fucks that are on SB for 10 years because they smoke pot and are addicted and cannot work .

Oh, you mean the Harris family? I'm sure Paula claimed they were on a benefit since 1984. No National governments since then?

They dont need training - most of them just need a rocket up their arse to get a fucken job.

Ah yes, because the economy always provides heaps of jobs. Sorry, I forgot. Funny how when I've been looking, options have been a bit scarce. I must need a rocket up my arse.

You missed where it is offset across the entire tax brackets - nett income for all will be up. You greenies miss a lot huh?

I will reserve judgement until I see the actual details. But my prediction is that the uber-rich will benefit (with a sop to the poor) at the cost of the middle class. And you dumb bastards think they're looking after you!

Like the great global warming con. Parties in glass houses etc

Not getting into a climate change debate here but if you think it's a con good luck to you. I'll stick with the science, thanks.

ps. Just seen this - from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/martin-johnston/news/article.cfm?a_id=110&objectid=10538381&pnum=1

National leader John Key said told a press conference this morning that if National is elected and does a "half decent job" at growing the economy, then increasing GST and the top tax rate will not be necessary.

Snicker.

mashman

9th February 2010, 14:59

Like the great global warming con. Parties in glass houses etc

"Funding for a network of open access food development and commercialisation facilities, investment in the domestic centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research and in the Global Research Alliance, and in Primary Growth Partnership."

seriously, WTF is Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research? Cow farts?

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6779528/gst-up-taxes-down-and-property-investments-stung/

Miscreant

9th February 2010, 15:03

What?

Why would you buy anything for a long term hold unless you were intending to sell it and make money?

http://www.ird.govt.nz/toii/property/check/property-check-pay-tax.html

It is, of course, up to IRD to prove your intent - but then if you're claiming a tax "loss" on the investment, it's pretty hard to argue (with a straight face) that your intent wasn't to make money from a rise in the value. If it's your family home, you can't claim a tax loss.

EDIT: Unless you're talking about not selling it ever. In which case, you're quite correct - IRD wont go after an increase in the value in that instance. Sorry, crossed wires I think.

But then the income from that investment (shares or property) is taxable of course.

Seriously, don't give up your day, which appears to be talking shit from the looks of it I may add. It's not up to the ird to prove anything. They need only level a charge and it is up to you to prove otherwise. Under tax law you are guilty until proven innocent.
However you are still wrong on your original point anyway.
Sure you "may" be liable for tax on the sale of a house, in certain specific circumstances as I outlined.

Boody bush lawyers.

Tank

9th February 2010, 15:07

Oh, you mean the Harris family? I'm sure Paula claimed they were on a benefit since 1984. No National governments since then?

Them and many others - truth tho is that there are many who have lived on benefit for the labour years - at least National is standing up and saying 'enough'!

Ah yes, because the economy always provides heaps of jobs. Sorry, I forgot. Funny how when I've been looking, options have been a bit scarce. I must need a rocket up my arse.

Not you specifically - but if you dont think there are many '000's of people that do need a rocket you are living in a dream world. A sad insulated dream world.

I will reserve judgement until I see the actual details. But my prediction is that the uber-rich will benefit (with a sop to the poor) at the cost of the middle class. And you dumb bastards think they're looking after you!

meh - im in the rich category - so im all good. Guess Im not such a dumb bastard after all.

Not getting into a climate change debate here but if you think it's a con good luck to you. I'll stick with the science, thanks.

ahh - the faked science that didnt stand up.

ps. Just seen this - from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/martin-johnston/news/article.cfm?a_id=110&objectid=10538381&pnum=1

Snicker.

in red baby 10 chars

rainman

9th February 2010, 15:11

Fookin hell, colour me surprised. Peter Dunne just made a small amount of sense!

Swoop

9th February 2010, 15:15

WHAT!!?? The "safety net" of the unemployment benefit ISN'T a hammock to laze around in??
Fucking great!!

Leave GST alone and hammer the abusers of the public purse!

On social service, Mr Key confirmed that legislation would be introduced to reform the benefit system as promised before the last election.

"For most people, a benefit should only provide temporary support until they can return to work."

Fookin hell, colour me surprised. Peter Dunne just made a small amount of sense!
What? He said that he was going to take a crap?

rainman

9th February 2010, 15:22

in red baby 10 chars

I'd be first in line to kick the Harris family's lazy arses into jail, if needed. But they are by far the exception, rather than the rule. It's not smart to base policy mainly on exceptions.
And yes, some people do need a rocket - but if you generalise that into believing most beneficiaries are lazy dole bludgers you're an idiot.
If you're really rich, congrats. Hope you didn't screw over too many people and destroy too many irreplaceable resources to get there. And, since your moral compass seems stuck on "I'm alright Jack, fuck the rest" I assume you gained no benefit from government or anyone else in your rise to the top?

Tank

9th February 2010, 15:29

I'd be first in line to kick the Harris family's lazy arses into jail, if needed. But they are by far the exception, rather than the rule. It's not smart to base policy mainly on exceptions.
And yes, some people do need a rocket - but if you generalise that into believing most beneficiaries are lazy dole bludgers you're an idiot.

Im not saying that the majority are by any means - Im saying that there are thousands of them that are - and that is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you're really rich, congrats. Hope you didn't screw over too many people and destroy too many irreplaceable resources to get there. And, since your moral compass seems stuck on "I'm alright Jack, fuck the rest" I assume you gained no benefit from government or anyone else in your rise to the top?

Not really rich - but not doing too bad by a lot of standards. I love it when prety much every leftie thinbks just because you have done well that you had to screw over lots of people and damage resources to get there. Seems that they are the ones with the fucked up view of the world.

and no - never had any money from the g'ment. no benefits, no business loans - nothing.

in red again - cos its pretty

Tank

9th February 2010, 15:30

I'd be first in line to kick the Harris family's lazy arses into jail,

And yet you are against it when the government start cracking down on people like that?

Mully

9th February 2010, 15:30

Seriously, don't give up your day, which appears to be talking shit from the looks of it I may add. It's not up to the ird to prove anything. They need only level a charge and it is up to you to prove otherwise. Under tax law you are guilty until proven innocent.
However you are still wrong on your original point anyway.
Sure you "may" be liable for tax on the sale of a house, in certain specific circumstances as I outlined.

Boody bush lawyers.

LOL

You haven't outlined anything yet

Feel free to prove me wrong though, I'm always happy to learn something new. Especially if I can make tax gains out of it.

EDIT: actually, wouldn't I be a bloody bush accountant rather than a bush lawyer. Both maybe.

Headbanger

9th February 2010, 15:48

And in conclusion, No bold steps were taken, Mr Mouse merely gave flight to a couple of kites.

Miscreant

9th February 2010, 16:38

LOL

You haven't outlined anything yet

Feel free to prove me wrong though, I'm always happy to learn something new. Especially if I can make tax gains out of it.

EDIT: actually, wouldn't I be a bloody bush accountant rather than a bush lawyer. Both maybe.

Now I'm sure you're fucking with me. My post 33 outlines (be it breif) where you may and may not be liable for tax on the sale of a property.
I know I'd want my lawyer advising me on matters of law. But hey up to you, after all, you're the expert right.

rainman

9th February 2010, 17:01

869][/COLOR]Im saying that there are thousands of them that are

You should check the actual figures for long term beneficiaries, they are lower than you might think.

I love it when prety much every leftie thinbks just because you have done well that you had to screw over lots of people and damage resources to get there. Seems that they are the ones with the fucked up view of the world.

and no - never had any money from the g'ment. no benefits, no business loans - nothing.

Actually I didn't say you had, just that that is the traditional capitalist way. Plenty of evidence of this if y ou look around, and through history.
And you've received no benefit at all, including indirect, from living in a civilised society? You must be one of those Randian supermen I keep hearing about. (Sorry, I do realise sarcasm is a low form of wit).

And yet you are against it when the government start cracking down on people like that?

What on earth gave you that idea? I firmly think that true bludgers, both those exploiting the welfare system, and those exploiting the tax system, should be nailed. Note the difference between this and simplistic generalised one-sided bennie bashing.

And in conclusion, No bold steps were taken, Mr Mouse merely gave flight to a couple of kites.

Indeed. David Slack nails it: http://publicaddress.net/default,6460.sm#post6460
"It's possibly a step, it's possibly a change, but if this were the movies, I'd be rubbing my 3D glasses and trying to work out if I had the angle wrong."

Mully

9th February 2010, 17:37

Now I'm sure you're fucking with me. My post 33 outlines (be it breif) where you may and may not be liable for tax on the sale of a property.
I know I'd want my lawyer advising me on matters of law. But hey up to you, after all, you're the expert right.

I did manage to get under your skin remarkably easily.

Proof is not you saying it. That's you saying it.

I see you've used the "7-year-old child" argument - "I'm right, you're wrong. I can't hear you. Lalalalala"

Welcome to my ignore list, muppet.

Only thing worse than a bush lawyer is a fucktard.

SPman

9th February 2010, 17:58

(Sorry, I do realise sarcasm is a low form of wit). The lowest, in fact, Oscar.............;)

Miscreant

9th February 2010, 21:16

I did manage to get under your skin remarkably easily.

Proof is not you saying it. That's you saying it.

I see you've used the "7-year-old child" argument - "I'm right, you're wrong. I can't hear you. Lalalalala"

Welcome to my ignore list, muppet.

Only thing worse than a bush lawyer is a fucktard.

Who is under who's skin, mr I'm putting you on ignore?
Fucktards may be worse than bush lawyers but you being both is worse again.
Loser.

Winston001

9th February 2010, 21:40

CGT wasn't required really - if you buy a house with the intention of making money, you should be paying tax on it when you sell. IRD have never really chased that.

Mmmmm......yes and no. Miscreant has already commented :D so I don't know if this helps.

The usual reason for buying a house is to provide shelter and security - for yourself and your family. Renting by comparison, is insecure. IRD know this and do not investigate the ordinary person who upgrades their home every 5 - 7 years. Underlying home ownership is the hope/belief it's value will rise. However the value of the replacement property also rises so it's a zero sum game.

If instead you bought property with the intention of capturing a gain in value and kept a record of that decision - IRD would very easily assess the gain as taxable. Unfortunately for the Commissioner most people are very lax about such records..... :D

So what IRD look for is patterns of quick sales and purchases. The information on property transfers is easy to get these days. Then as Miscreant correctly says, you are on the back foot. If the Commissioner assesses you as liable for tax then the law says you have to pay - unless you can convince a judge the Commissioner is wrong. It's Guilty until proven Innocent.

I can think of people who bought and sold over a short period for legitimate reasons but IRD aren't wearing that. The tax isn't a lot so it will probably be paid rather than a year of stress etc. There are other cases though where tens of millions of dollars are being assessed and recovered from property speculators - which is as it should be.

So be assured, IRD are finding tax evaders and computers are making it faster and easier.

Brian d marge

10th February 2010, 01:23

Call me old fashioned

but i would like a house i can afford and still see my family on the odd day away from Albion's satanic mill

Stephen

found a house in south bridge , near ch-ch 149 000 ( full mortgage say 300 over 25 years ) thats a weekly income required of 1000 dollars a week if the the weekly repayments are 30 % of your income

F$#$%&

sod that ( I am only paying 25 % of me salary here )

golfmade

10th February 2010, 03:11

Mully

10th February 2010, 07:49

The usual reason for buying a house is to provide shelter and security - for yourself and your family. Renting by comparison, is insecure. IRD know this and do not investigate the ordinary person who upgrades their home every 5 - 7 years. Underlying home ownership is the hope/belief it's value will rise. However the value of the replacement property also rises so it's a zero sum game.

If instead you bought property with the intention of capturing a gain in value and kept a record of that decision - IRD would very easily assess the gain as taxable. Unfortunately for the Commissioner most people are very lax about such records..... :D

So what IRD look for is patterns of quick sales and purchases. The information on property transfers is easy to get these days. Then as Miscreant correctly says, you are on the back foot. If the Commissioner assesses you as liable for tax then the law says you have to pay - unless you can convince a judge the Commissioner is wrong. It's Guilty until proven Innocent.

I can think of people who bought and sold over a short period for legitimate reasons but IRD aren't wearing that. The tax isn't a lot so it will probably be paid rather than a year of stress etc. There are other cases though where tens of millions of dollars are being assessed and recovered from property speculators - which is as it should be.

So be assured, IRD are finding tax evaders and computers are making it faster and easier.

Sorry, I meant rental property - if you are buying a family home there isn't tax on the gain on that of course.

My point was if you buy a rental and claim "losses" against your income, it's pretty hard to claim that your intention wasn't making a profit come sale time.

Generally, no-one buys their family home soley with the intent on making money (if they add value, that's usually secondary to "security", as you said).

Agree with what you say with regard to quick buying and selling. I got some information from my accountant (not a bush accountant, unfortunately) who was with IRD for several years.

His opinion was that IRD have historically not caught this potential revenue stream (for whatever reason). I understand IRD added some resource to police this more lately.

Jez

10th February 2010, 14:49

Mully

10th February 2010, 15:33

How does one feel about being lied to? ... i know it pisses me off (voted national here)

As far as the whole raising of GST goes ... really ... what's the point?

Personally, I like the idea of moving from a direct, compulsory tax to a descretionary tax - after all, you don't have to buy a new TV with your tax cut - it's going to help us reduce our debt even faster. (edit: by "us" I mean the wife and I)

I'm not convinced that Labour wouldn't have done exactly the same thing had they won in '08. (they raised GST last time didn't they? As I recall there were "promises" that it would "never" go above 10%) - I think Labour supporters are just using this occasion to put the boot in.

Plus I'm not convinced that National knew the state of the Government books when John Key made that statement.

Meh, as long as I'm better off, that's what matters.

As for being "lied to" - I'm ambivalent. All politicians are all full of shit all the time. No surprises there, really.

Miscreant

10th February 2010, 15:50

Sorry, I meant rental property - if you are buying a family home there isn't tax on the gain on that of course.

My point was if you buy a rental and claim "losses" against your income, it's pretty hard to claim that your intention wasn't making a profit come sale time.

Generally, no-one buys their family home soley with the intent on making money (if they add value, that's usually secondary to "security", as you said).

Agree with what you say with regard to quick buying and selling. I got some information from my accountant (not a bush accountant, unfortunately) who was with IRD for several years.

His opinion was that IRD have historically not caught this potential revenue stream (for whatever reason). I understand IRD added some resource to police this more lately.

Please stop digging skidmark. Is there no limit to your ignorance and the lengths you will go to to display it?
If you buy and sell houses for a living you are taxed on the profit on sale. If you are doing this as if it were a business, ditto you are taxed on profit on a sale. If you but infrequently buy and sell you are not considered to be doing so as a business and profit on sale is not currently taxed in NZ. Even in countries that have a capital gains tax, if the proceeds of a sale are reinvested you are frequently not liable for the tax.

It's great being on ignore. Finally I can tell the truth and numb nuts here won't argue his usual bullshit position.

davereid

10th February 2010, 16:17

Skyryder

10th February 2010, 19:27

Mallard smacked a guy for teasing him about rooting a chick - does that count?

Only if he was out for 'duck.'

Skyryder

Coldrider

10th February 2010, 19:32

Please stop digging skidmark. Is there no limit to your ignorance and the lengths you will go to to display it?
If you buy and sell houses for a living you are taxed on the profit on sale. If you are doing this as if it were a business, ditto you are taxed on profit on a sale. If you but infrequently buy and sell you are not considered to be doing so as a business and profit on sale is not currently taxed in NZ. Even in countries that have a capital gains tax, if the proceeds of a sale are reinvested you are frequently not liable for the tax.

It's great being on ignore. Finally I can tell the truth and numb nuts here won't argue his usual bullshit position.If a property is bought and onsold before settlement, even as a oncer, you are liable for tax on any gain.

Skyryder

10th February 2010, 19:45

[url]

Will be interesting - what would YOU be doing if it was you having to make the decisions.

I'd sack Nick Smith for starters. Then call another election.

Skyryder

MisterD

10th February 2010, 19:48

As far as the whole raising of GST goes ... really ... what's the point? They give with one hand, and take with the other making a gain of zero to joe normal, meanwhile those at the very top and very bottom of the ladder will see some benefit at least, its the majority in the middle that are getting railed here.

GST is a tax on consumption - generally not such a good thing when dumb Kiwis borrow money from the apocryphal Belgian dentist to buy a flat screen telly....income tax is a drag on what you actually want, people going out, doing stuff and earning a couple of dollars. It's the middle ground that are getting done like kippers at the moment - after all, the 9 years of Cullen ended with a definition of "rich prick" as anyone on PAYE earning more than $70k.

The tax working group, or whatever they were officially called, called it right. PAYE'ers get hammered, the actual rich play games with companies and trusts and the bludgers sit on their arses and suck the taxpayer tit. We should be seeing a land tax to bring foreign land-owners into the system, (Shania can spare a bob or two can't she?) and I'm mystified as to why we don't have a tax-free allowance at the bottom end - I'm sure we don't get enough tax from minimum-wage earners to actually cover the cost of collecting it...

I'm giving the nats a C+ "must try harder" on this one - quit trying to boil the socialist frog and fry the fucker now.

MisterD

10th February 2010, 19:52

I'd sack Nick Smith for starters. Then call another election.

Skyryder

Might be a good call with Phil "in" Goof searching for relevance...

Winston001

10th February 2010, 19:54

Nobody wants to pay more tax - of any nature. However the Tax working Group found that after allowing for family tax credits, beneficiaries, and superannuitants, 10% of taxpayers are paying 76% of the total tax take. That is blatantly unfair.

So we have to find better ways of distributing the tax burden and GST is one of them. Everyone has to pay it.

Coldrider

10th February 2010, 19:58

...His opinion was that IRD have historically not caught this potential revenue stream (for whatever reason). I understand IRD added some resource to police this more lately.
There is no hurry, the Land Transfer Office has all land transfers electronically for the last six years, IRD can track a name or transfer and access all related data. Incidentially there is no statute of limitations for undisclosed property dealings.

mashman

10th February 2010, 20:00

Interesting point about the amount of the average kiwis pay tied up in a mortgage. GST is not charged on residential rentals, or your mortgage, so for those who rent a home, or those with a mortgage, a decrease in income tax, and an increase in GST is great news. You will take home more, and you you will face only a minimal increase in your costs. For many, tax rates have already dropped like a stone, and any more decreases are great news. Consider - if you were earning $38k under the last government you were paying a marginal tax rate of 33%. Its already dropped to 21% and looks like heading lower.

Correct, it's not, because the house has been built and someone else has already taken the GST hit. How can you justify a GST hit on a second hand house?... but GST is charged on every utility in that house. If you were earning under 38k and had a mortgage I think i'd wonder where you had been getting all of your money from. Most likely from your rental property, but as it's runs at a loss you can write that loss off against another one of your assets for a tax break, or apply a depreciation value to the chattels and because you can do this 1 thing, you can turn a 78k wage into a 37999k wage and save tax...

Swings and roundabouts. But the government says that the country is in a bad way, shockingly run by the previous government and an under paid workforce. Therefore they need to rejig the tax system so that we can all be better off?????????????? doesn't that mean the country will suffer????????? oh how can it be, because they had a crack at the tax system to get money from nowhere to balance the country's books????

Mully

10th February 2010, 20:00

There is no hurry, the Land Transfer Office has all land transfers electronically for the last six years, IRD can track a name or transfer and access all related data. Incidentially there is no statute of limitations for undisclosed property dealings.

Really??

Didn't know there was no statute of limitations.. I would have thought maybe seven years.

Interesting.

MisterD

10th February 2010, 20:01

Everyone has to pay it.

..and no amount of fancy tax lawyers will get you around that...I don't understand why it wouldn't be possible to leave it at 12.5% on food and make it higher on luxuries though...

Coldrider

10th February 2010, 20:03

Really??

Didn't know there was no statute of limitations.. I would have thought maybe seven years.

Interesting.No limitations for undisclosed property dealings (or any other income), if the IRD have been misled, your in the gun, and chances are records have been biffed.

Miscreant

10th February 2010, 22:17

If a property is bought and onsold before settlement, even as a oncer, you are liable for tax on any gain.

The examples I gave are not intended as a complete and exhaustive list. I think it kind of obvious that they must be curtailed for brevity. I accept what you say, though that doesn't alter the principal. Without knowing the circumstances it is likely that the ird were sufficiently convinced that the intent was to trade for profit and as such it would of course be the correct decision by ird. However the point remains that under current law gains made on the sale of a rental property is generally not taxable.

Pascal

11th February 2010, 06:11

How does one feel about being lied to? ... i know it pisses me off (voted national here)

It actually doesn't bother me too much. Michael Cullen and his ilk handed National a poisonous financial chalice, after frittering away 9 years of healthy, good surpluses on useless bullshit, Hip Hop tours, toy train sets and what not. Prior to the election, when National was unaware that Labour had fucked New Zealand over financially, I'm sure they had no intentions of raising GST.

But then, once the real shit we'd been dumped in by those fucking socialists came to light, what do you expect? Of course they're going to make adjustments to their plans. Not to do so would be stupid. And they're looking at increasing taxes on consumption and reducing taxes on wealth generation. That's a bonus. More people saving. More people trying to better their lives. They're going to be creating the right types of incentives to take us out of a "Gimme because I want" culture into one where people take responsibility for their own lives and forge forward on their own, within a healthy, good society.

So yeah, good on John Key for taking the political hit but doing the smart thing. I'd rather have them change their minds because the circumstances have changed than having them stick to their guns into the face of all stupidity ...

...I don't understand why it wouldn't be possible to leave it at 12.5% on food and make it higher on luxuries though...

:nods: Follow Adam's pyramid, aye?

Skyryder

11th February 2010, 11:03

It actually doesn't bother me too much. Michael Cullen and his ilk handed National a poisonous financial chalice, after frittering away 9 years of healthy, good surpluses on useless bullshit, Hip Hop tours, toy train sets and what not. Prior to the election, when National was unaware that Labour had fucked New Zealand over financially, I'm sure they had no intentions of raising GST.

But then, once the real shit we'd been dumped in by those fucking socialists came to light, what do you expect? Of course they're going to make adjustments to their plans. Not to do so would be stupid. And they're looking at increasing taxes on consumption and reducing taxes on wealth generation. That's a bonus. More people saving. More people trying to better their lives. They're going to be creating the right types of incentives to take us out of a "Gimme because I want" culture into one where people take responsibility for their own lives and forge forward on their own, within a healthy, good society.

So yeah, good on John Key for taking the political hit but doing the smart thing. I'd rather have them change their minds because the circumstances have changed than having them stick to their guns into the face of all stupidity ...

:nods: Follow Adam's pyramid, aye?

I suppose you also believe the bullshit that Nick Smith has used for the justification of raising the Biker ACC levies.

Skyryder

mashman

11th February 2010, 11:08

I suppose you also believe the bullshit that Nick Smith has used for the justification of raising the Biker ACC levies.

Skyryder

Pascal has a point man. Just because you say one thing and do another, doesn't instantly mean that you always meant to do it, especially when there's the economy of a country relying on the decision made.

Don't get me wrong, i think the proposed changes are robbing peter to pay paul... i'm just worried that Paul is already a rich bastard.

The Stranger

11th February 2010, 11:20

No limitations for undisclosed property dealings (or any other income), if the IRD have been misled, your in the gun, and chances are records have been biffed.

That is interesting in that the IRD used a 7yr statute of limitations in declining claims from the aftermath of the 87 sharemarket crash and the resultant property market crash.
Many rightly declared themselves traders and claimed to their losses. All of a sudden the IRD about faced on what constituted a trader and declined the claims.
When the claims of some were finally upheld many many years later, if you hadn't claimed or appealed their earlier decision within 7yrs they refused to accept the claim.

Pascal

11th February 2010, 11:52

I suppose you also believe the bullshit that Nick Smith has used for the justification of raising the Biker ACC levies.

Have you been listening to National peddle shit on this whole budget issue? They don't know which side of the fence they're coming from. So there's no regurgitating a party line here, thank you. I'm guessing at how events have unfolded, given what we know about the shit that has been discovered since the Labour party left office. (You know, those massive deficits and associated problems caused by their overspending).

So, when people see massive changes, increases in ACC levies, refusals to increase salaries for state sector/ no increases in budgets for hospitals or other services, etc. just remember that there is one group of people to blame for that. Michael Cullen, Helen Clark and the rest of the Labour party.

Remember the root cause of all these problems and don't bitch because the government of the day is trying their best to:

(a) Change our culture away from dependancy on the state to one of individual ability and accomplishment
(b) Recover from the worst financial crisis the world has seen in 80+ years
(c) Attempt to recover from the financial shithouse the previous government caused despite the massive surpluses they carried.

Mashman, I see your point about Peter and Paul. The positive things for me in this is:

(a) They've indicated that any changes would not leave low income earners worse off, unless they own investment properties
(b) It shifts the tax from earnings to a tax on consumption, thus incentivising saving rather than spending
(c) That might lead to more investment inside New Zealand with less of our money going to China for cheap Warehouse plastic
(d) It slowly begins to change the attitude of people in the country as we are rewarded for improving ourselves, instead of trying to stay below the "Rich Prick" threshold of the poverty line to collect welfare

It seems positive to me. Probably won't be, given the history of politicans and the way best intentions end, but hey!

Skyryder

11th February 2010, 11:54

Pascal has a point man. Just because you say one thing and do another, doesn't instantly mean that you always meant to do it, especially when there's the economy of a country relying on the decision made.

Don't get me wrong, i think the proposed changes are robbing peter to pay paul... i'm just worried that Paul is already a rich bastard.

Point or not it's another u-turn if Key raises GST. It's not as if this is unknown for Key to do.

The interesting thing that I find in all of this is that Key maintains that he has forgotten what he said. Now that may be true.

It is also 'equally' true that when you make a statement that you mean you tend to remember; it's the 'lies' that are forgotton.

Skyryder

Tank

11th February 2010, 11:57

Point or not it's another u-turn if Key raises GST. It's not as if this is unknown for Key to do.

I note in the video they dont have the question - and Key has said it was in direct reply to would they raise GST to cover the huge fucken deficit labour left us. He said no - and nor has he.

But - hey show a clip out of full context and take from it what you may.

Tank

11th February 2010, 11:58

Skyryder

11th February 2010, 11:59

Have you been listening to National peddle shit on this whole budget issue? They don't know which side of the fence they're coming from. So there's no regurgitating a party line here, thank you. I'm guessing at how events have unfolded, given what we know about the shit that has been discovered since the Labour party left office. (You know, those massive deficits and associated problems caused by their overspending).

So, when people see massive changes, increases in ACC levies, refusals to increase salaries for state sector/ no increases in budgets for hospitals or other services, etc. just remember that there is one group of people to blame for that. Michael Cullen, Helen Clark and the rest of the Labour party.

Remember the root cause of all these problems and don't bitch because the government of the day is trying their best to:

(a) Change our culture away from dependancy on the state to one of individual ability and accomplishment
(b) Recover from the worst financial crisis the world has seen in 80+ years
(c) Attempt to recover from the financial shithouse the previous government caused despite the massive surpluses they carried.

Mashman, I see your point about Peter and Paul. The positive things for me in this is:

(a) They've indicated that any changes would not leave low income earners worse off, unless they own investment properties
(b) It shifts the tax from earnings to a tax on consumption, thus incentivising saving rather than spending
(c) That might lead to more investment inside New Zealand with less of our money going to China for cheap Warehouse plastic
(d) It slowly begins to change the attitude of people in the country as we are rewarded for improving ourselves, instead of trying to stay below the "Rich Prick" threshold of the poverty line to collect welfare

It seems positive to me. Probably won't be, given the history of politicans and the way best intentions end, but hey!

Problem is .............if you lie about one policy and the reasons for it how do you know that the other policies are not built on lies too?

Skyryder

mashman

11th February 2010, 12:10

I note in the video they dont have the question - and Key has said it was in direct reply to would they raise GST to cover the huge fucken deficit labour left us. He said no - and nor has he.

But - hey show a clip out of full context and take from it what you may.

Heh, they're liars, but they ain't stoopid... I saw the full story too, but again you have to take away from it what you want... for me personally, the message i take from it is... same shit different day...

Mully

11th February 2010, 12:13

The interesting thing that I find in all of this is that Key maintains that he has forgotten what he said. Now that may be true.

The interview I saw on Te News when they asked him (about the video clip) was that the question was whether he was going to raise GST to cover the deficit. He didn't say anything about forgetting.

Still - I like the idea (provided the tax cuts actually happen) - moving taxation from compulsory to descretionary - it'll let us pay off the house faster.

mashman

11th February 2010, 12:14

Point or not it's another u-turn if Key raises GST. It's not as if this is unknown for Key to do.

The interesting thing that I find in all of this is that Key maintains that he has forgotten what he said. Now that may be true.

It is also 'equally' true that when you make a statement that you mean you tend to remember; it's the 'lies' that are forgotton.

Skyryder

but a lying politician is nothing new... he did mention that they wouldn't use it to cover the deficit... nice and easy that... make GST cover the drop in income tax and pay off the deficit through some other stealth tax. It shows that Key didn't lie... but i don't necessarily think he told the truth either... who cares, he's a politician, he can say what he likes and do something entirely different "to protect the country"...

Don't focus on the man. There are 20 like him all queueng up for the job!

Mully

11th February 2010, 12:16

a lying politician is nothing new.

Well yeah, there is that.......

Pascal

11th February 2010, 12:19

Problem is .............if you lie about one policy and the reasons for it how do you know that the other policies are not built on lies too?

You're pulling it to extremes, focussing on a very narrow thing without considering the change in circumstances. Let's look at it simply. Would you rather:

(a) John Key stick to his original statement, despite the change in circumstances and leave New Zealand up shit creek?
(b) John Key change the plans of this government to give us a chance to clean up this mess, now that the situation has changed?

Or in biking terms - you're hooning down the motorway at 260km/h. You see both lanes are blocked with no room around them. Do you:

(a) Keep going at 260km/h because that was your original plan?
(b) Slow down and find a way around, even if that changes your original plan?

I'd pick (b), personally.

Tank

11th February 2010, 12:21

The Stranger

11th February 2010, 12:24

Tank

11th February 2010, 12:27

On a virago! Keep it at 260, cause no one's going to believe you unless the SCU validate it.

i Lollied.

mashman

11th February 2010, 12:29

Mashman, I see your point about Peter and Paul. The positive things for me in this is:

(a) They've indicated that any changes would not leave low income earners worse off, unless they own investment properties
(b) It shifts the tax from earnings to a tax on consumption, thus incentivising saving rather than spending
(c) That might lead to more investment inside New Zealand with less of our money going to China for cheap Warehouse plastic
(d) It slowly begins to change the attitude of people in the country as we are rewarded for improving ourselves, instead of trying to stay below the "Rich Prick" threshold of the poverty line to collect welfare

It seems positive to me. Probably won't be, given the history of politicans and the way best intentions end, but hey!

just offering up the flip side...

a) it's only going to affect the low earners if they start living beyond their means (same as anyone else really)... but with more cash in your pocket wotcha gonna do... low earners won't save it, they'll be using it to pay for the gas, electricity, clothing, food and everything else that's essential to "normal life"... The country is broke apparantly, so to fix this they're giving us all a tax break and putting up GST in a bid to cut the deficit and still provide the services against a back drop of inflation... hence robbing peter to pay paul... if you need money you gotta borrow it from somewhere...
b) Should be a good thing. But what happens when you find extra cash in your pocket... hmmmm... not everyone has a mortgage, not everyone have savings, not everyone wants to save and i think that's what the govt are really banking on... us spending and not saving. They'll get a bloody shock if it turns out the other way!
c) so trying to close the door, the fact that the horse has bolted means nothing... Kiwibank, brilliant idea, yet how many of you are with Kiwibank? How much of the current "profiteering" in NZ actually stays in NZ? From what i can tell, not a lot! The government should be competing directly with those companies that are removing money from NZ... for instance KiwiComputing to replace HP/EDS (lots and lots of money leaving the country from a technology standpoint) etc... that's how you keep your money in your country!
d) sorry, but not everyone feels that way. If it was that easy to change peoples minds about these issues, i'd run for govt myself, but i'd be pushing for the removal of money from NZ... noone wants to know, even though that's by far the only solution to 99% of our problems... but who cares!!!

In a financial economy, everything is personal. To you it seems positive. To me there's shitloads of money going somewhere other than in the pockets of the people who actually do the work. And yet i know that i still need to work and function to provide... to a certain extent I have to hang out my "morals" in order to survive in the financialy economy... and that to me is why it's a set of negative steps. The root cause is money and those who beieve the accumulation of it is a necessity in their lives.

mashman

11th February 2010, 12:30

Or in biking terms - you're hooning down the motorway at 260km/h. You see both lanes are blocked with no room around them. Do you:

(a) Keep going at 260km/h because that was your original plan?
(b) Slow down and find a way around, even if that changes your original plan?

I'd pick (b), personally.

does the motorway have a service lane (hee hee... couldn't resist, sorry)

merv

11th February 2010, 12:34

Key's message was a real "I'll tell you what we are considering but I won't tell you anything" message so I'm none the wiser.

The real question is at what rate does one need to spend the kids inheritance? The missing piece of the equation is the date of your death. Even if you have a planned end, what if for some other reason you don't live that long and you haven't had a chance to spend all your money.

Coldrider

11th February 2010, 12:49

That is interesting in that the IRD used a 7yr statute of limitations in declining claims from the aftermath of the 87 sharemarket crash and the resultant property market crash.
Many rightly declared themselves traders and claimed to their losses. All of a sudden the IRD about faced on what constituted a trader and declined the claims.
When the claims of some were finally upheld many many years later, if you hadn't claimed or appealed their earlier decision within 7yrs they refused to accept the claim. 7 year limitations for overpaid GST as well.
IRD have only four years to issue a reassessment.
Tax Admin Act 1994 sect 107A(2) removes limitation for fraudulent or otherwise returns.
7 years of sleepness nights is not enough for a get out of jail free card.
Time bar for amendment of assessments
• (1) When any person has made returns and has been assessed for income tax for any year, it shall not be lawful for the Commissioner to amend the assessment so as to increase its amount after the expiration of 4 years from the end of the year in which the notice of original assessment was issued.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), in any case where, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the returns so made are fraudulent or wilfully misleading or omit all mention of income which is of a particular nature or was derived from a particular source, and in respect of which a return is required to be made, it shall be lawful for the Commissioner to amend the assessment (being an assessment made on or after 1 April 1958) at any time so as to increase the amount of the assessment.

Pascal

11th February 2010, 13:16

On a virago! Keep it at 260, cause no one's going to believe you unless the SCU validate it.

Top of a mineshaft, straight down. Honest guv :p

mashman

11th February 2010, 13:24

Pascal

11th February 2010, 13:29

The country is broke apparantly, so to fix this they're giving us all a tax break and putting up GST in a bid to cut the deficit and still provide the services against a back drop of inflation... hence robbing peter to pay paul... if you need money you gotta borrow it from somewhere...

I'm not following the Peter / Paul thing here. It might be my simplistic understanding of things though.

SPman

11th February 2010, 13:31

Tank

11th February 2010, 13:56

To me there's shitloads of money going somewhere other than in the pockets of the people who actually do the work.

Actually Id say the problem is that there is shitloads of money going FROM the pockets of people who actually do the work to the pockets of people who dont.

73% of taxes is paid by 10% of the country - thats fucked up.

mashman

11th February 2010, 14:04

I'm not following the Peter / Paul thing here. It might be my simplistic understanding of things though.

Must be a saying from ye olde country... soz... It's essentially stealing money from one source, a source that still needs the money, in order to fund another source that "supposedly" needs the money too. So, you take money from income tax and offset the loss by upping GST... Peter being income tax and Paul being GST... There's no real logic to it, because next year you'll need to steal from Paul to pay Peter... It's a look at it from a governmental point of view.

Actually Id say the problem is that there is shitloads of money going FROM the pockets of people who actually do the work to the pockets of people who dont.

tomato - tomarto :wacko:

Pascal

11th February 2010, 14:38

Must be a saying from ye olde country... soz... It's essentially stealing money from one source, a source that still needs the money, in order to fund another source that "supposedly" needs the money too. So, you take money from income tax and offset the loss by upping GST... Peter being income tax and Paul being GST... There's no real logic to it, because next year you'll need to steal from Paul to pay Peter... It's a look at it from a governmental point of view.

There's my problem. I was trying to equate Peter / Paul to social / economic groups, rather than taxes :p Thanks for the clarification.

However, consider this. GST is a tax on consumption. PAYE is a tax on income. There is a fundemental difference there that relates rather closely to NZ (And the world's) current financial situation. Probably of most households as well. So yeah, shuffling the source of income around, but creating a whole new dynamic with that.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out long term though.

Clockwork

11th February 2010, 14:38

Actually Id say the problem is that there is shitloads of money going FROM the pockets of people who actually do the work to the pockets of people who dont.

73% of taxes is paid by 10% of the country - thats fucked up.

It's not fucked up if 10% of the nation controls 73% of its wealth

(..... of course I'm not saying that it does, I don't actually know what the weath distribution is in NZ but it should be taken into account)

As the baby boomers start to retire you can bet that there would be even fewer tax payers. Of course by moving the tax base on to consumption we can continue to be taxed right up to the day we die.

Skyryder

11th February 2010, 16:05

You're pulling it to extremes, focussing on a very narrow thing without considering the change in circumstances. Let's look at it simply. Would you rather:

(a) John Key stick to his original statement, despite the change in circumstances and leave New Zealand up shit creek?
(b) John Key change the plans of this government to give us a chance to clean up this mess, now that the situation has changed?

Or in biking terms - you're hooning down the motorway at 260km/h. You see both lanes are blocked with no room around them. Do you:

(a) Keep going at 260km/h because that was your original plan?
(b) Slow down and find a way around, even if that changes your original plan?

I'd pick (b), personally.

Key came up with tax cuts to win the election knowing full well the countrycould not afford them. Once in power one of the first things he did was to cancell them on the grounds that we could not afford them. It's about the only honest statement he has made.

Now he comes across with the 'possibility' or 'probability' that GST will be raised to pay for them. commentators who know about this far more than I maintain that the proposed tax cuts and the raising of GST will benifit those on the higher incomes while those on the lower will be worse off. Already bikers are worse off with the ACC levies and there were many comments of 'who is next.' Unfortunatley most believed that the 'who's' next relates to further increase of ACC levies to certain target groups. Whose next?? I'm guessing here will relate to most on here. Keys is shitting on NZ...................like he did once before as a money trader. Remember the 'smily face' has a sharp pin on the back. Sooner or later it will be 'pricked' into most of New Zealand.

Skyryder

Mully

11th February 2010, 18:20

Pascal

12th February 2010, 05:35

Keys is shitting on NZ...................like he did once before as a money trader

Oh God. I'm not even going to touch that delusion. But I like how you dodge the entire premise and turn it into an attack. Let me guess, voted Labour or Greens?

I got one.

I did too. Small one, but it was there.

avgas

12th February 2010, 05:52

heh I am enjoying reading this.
Half of you are aguing that Key is trying to screw us, the other half are saying we were already screwed by labour/greens etc.
Sad fact of the matter is you are both right.
How Patriotic of you to defend you right to vote for morons.

Pascal

12th February 2010, 07:07

How Patriotic of you to defend you right to vote for morons.

Heh. Good point! I've always wanted a "None of the above" option on my ballot paper. That way, rather than abstaining if none of them appealed, I could tell them they sucked and that, if enough people voted for "None of the above" they'd have to go back on the campaign trail and see if they could come up with something better.

'Course, the country always seem to run better when Parliament is stood down. We could keep it that way ...

davereid

12th February 2010, 07:13

Key came up with tax cuts to win the election knowing full well the countrycould not afford them. Once in power one of the first things he did was to cancell them on the grounds that we could not afford them. It's about the only honest statement he has made.

Marginal Tax rates went from 33% to 21% for a taxpayer on $38k.

Increasing any tax is a bad idea.

You can be sure that if Labour get back in they will not lower it, they will just put the fines for working back up.

After all, thats what income tax is. Its fining you for being productive.

I for one have learned from the process of being fined.

I don't speed much now-a-days, and I don't bother working much either.

Mully

12th February 2010, 08:11

I did too. Small one, but it was there.

Small, but perfectly formed. And gratefully received.

Maybe it's a choice thing that annoys them - for nine years they had Aunty Helen and Uncle Michael telling them where there money was going. Now they are going to have more of it in their pocket and they can choose to give it back to the Gummint (by buying stuff subject to GST) or not giving it back (paying off debt, saving it), they're all confused and angry.

Tank

12th February 2010, 08:27

Pascal

12th February 2010, 10:25

Maybe it's a choice thing that annoys them - for nine years they had Aunty Helen and Uncle Michael telling them where there money was going. Now they are going to have more of it in their pocket and they can choose to give it back to the Gummint (by buying stuff subject to GST) or not giving it back (paying off debt, saving it), they're all confused and angry.

Could very well be :)

But you know us proletariat. We're too dumb to decide what to eat, where to live, which schools our kids should go to, how they should be educated and we're certainly not humane enough to care about our fellow citizens. That's all the job the government. Where would we be without them? Especially now that they're giving us some responsibility back!

mashman

12th February 2010, 11:47

Could very well be :)

But you know us proletariat. We're too dumb to decide what to eat, where to live, which schools our kids should go to, how they should be educated and we're certainly not humane enough to care about our fellow citizens. That's all the job the government. Where would we be without them? Especially now that they're giving us some responsibility back!

They're also giving us extra money too... But we can't spend it because we'll lose money because of a GST hike, which means putting it into the bank... which means making the banks richer... which means the really clever finance guys can invest other peoples money, syphon some off for themselves and soooo the world turns for the next 20 years until there's another recession!

Pascal

12th February 2010, 11:51

They're also giving us extra money too... But we can't spend it because we'll lose money because of a GST hike, which means putting it into the bank... which means making the banks richer... which means the really clever finance guys can invest other peoples money, syphon some off for themselves and soooo the world turns for the next 20 years until there's another recession!

On the plus side, after 19 years of saving you'll have a lot more money in the bank. Which you can then withdraw to:

(a) Use as a deposit on a house for your kids
(b) Part of retirement savings
(c) Buying a new house for yourself
(d) Buying a new bike
(e) Overseas holiday
(f) etc...

mashman

12th February 2010, 12:03

On the plus side, after 19 years of saving you'll have a lot more money in the bank. Which you can then withdraw to:

(a) Use as a deposit on a house for your kids
(b) Part of retirement savings
(c) Buying a new house for yourself
(d) Buying a new bike
(e) Overseas holiday
(f) etc...

Ha ha ha ha ha... and yet so wrong ;)!!!! How can you save if you're already on or near the breadline. How can you save when you need the washing machine fixed? When you need new tyres for the car? It may work for the DINK'ys of the world, but by no means will that work for everyone... not even close i'd say...

In 19 years (inflation, rarity of resources etc...), bread will cost $100, petrol will cost $34 a litre... the cost of living is not a constant... and in all likelihood those who haven't chased that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (not that that's a bad thing) will still have the same disposable income etc...

There's no plus side where money is involved.

Pascal

12th February 2010, 12:08

Ha ha ha ha ha... and yet so wrong ;)!!!! How can you save if you're already on or near the breadline. How can you save when you need the washing machine fixed? When you need new tyres for the car? It may work for the DINK'ys of the world, but by no means will that work for everyone... not even close i'd say...

Wasn't it you that said:

They're also giving us extra money too... But we can't spend it because we'll lose money because of a GST hike, which means putting it into the bank...

And no, they're not really giving us extra money. They're letting us keep more of what we've earned.

mashman

12th February 2010, 12:19

Wasn't it you that said:
And no, they're not really giving us extra money. They're letting us keep more of what we've earned.

Yes and the second bit was even more sarcastic... it never translates well on interweb... Otherwise i wouldn't have mentioned the Peter and Paul thing a while ago.

Winston001

12th February 2010, 15:31

It's not fucked up if 10% of the nation controls 73% of its wealth

But that isn't the case. Reflect for a moment. How many truely wealthy people do you personally know? How many do you know of? I'm sure we can all name a few - the Todd family, Faye and Richwhite etc. But in reality NZ doesn't have many "rich" people. We are vastly middle class and personally I like it that way.

Most of the 10% who pay the 73% are just folks. You wouldn't notice them on the street. For example a teacher (no kids) on $55k will be paying their full whack. The kid in the supermarket pays tax. To avoid tax you need to have children so you can claim tax credits.

The changes proposed will mean that some property investors will pay more tax which IMHO is a fair sharing of the load. The extra GST is only 2.5% which is $2.50 on a $100 purchase. Sod all. But no-one can escape it and the well off pay plenty of GST which is why its an effective tax.

Winston001

12th February 2010, 15:57

It actually doesn't bother me too much. Michael Cullen and his ilk handed National a poisonous financial chalice, after frittering away 9 years of healthy, good surpluses on useless bullshit, Hip Hop tours, toy train sets and what not.

I agree with you but let's give Michael Cullen credit. He wanted to put reserves aside and pay down govt debt. Fiscally he was a conservative. Unhappily for him he was a member of a Cabinet which had many social agendas. So instead of building infrastructure, introducing tax cuts, and reducing debt, he was forced to front more govt spending. I don't blame him personally for the position Labour left NZ in.

To be fair to Aunty Helen et al they did what they considered was the right thing - redistribution of wealth. Apparently putting aside for a rainy day doesn't occur in socialist households.....:D

SPman

12th February 2010, 18:03

To be fair to Aunty Helen et al they did what they considered was the right thing - redistribution of wealth. Apparently putting aside for a rainy day doesn't occur in socialist households.....:D
Since when did a National Government put aside for a rainy day? National also want to redistribute wealth - upwards to those who least need it!

Pascal

12th February 2010, 22:38

Since when did a National Government put aside for a rainy day? National also want to redistribute wealth - upwards to those who least need it!

Since when have they had a chance? We've had 9 years of socialist tax 'n spend policies, bought elections, and pissing 9 years of the biggest surpluses this country has seen down the drain. Thank you Labour. And thank you National for having the balls to fix those damn socialist fuck ups.

Mully

12th February 2010, 22:39

National also want to redistribute wealth - upwards to those who least need it!

You mean to those who earn it?

Is it redistribution to let people keep their own money??

davereid

13th February 2010, 07:29

Since when did a National Government put aside for a rainy day? National also want to redistribute wealth - upwards to those who least need it!

It would be nice if it were that simple.
We want to live in a country where even the poorest can afford a comfortable home, food, health and education. At least I do.
The socialist seem to think this is best achieved by taking money off those who have some, and giving it to those who dont.

But this has created a nightmare.

An entire subset of New Zealanders are now entirely dependent (and very happy) on welfare. Many have never known a parent or grandparent with a job. We keep ramping up the payments, to the point where many on benefits now earn more than the workers supporting them.

Worse, we pay for this by taking money out of the pockets of those who earned it. I have drawn the analogy of being fined for speeding - and its a good analogy, as the harder you work, the more you pay. !

No tax is good. But GST is better than most.

It IS a progressive tax. Its not charged on rents, mortgages, or loans. So the more of your income that is committed to those items, the less tax you pay.

And GST captures the black economy much better than any other tax, assuming that those cash jobs result in income that is eventually spent.

New Zealand has to remain a country where we look after the weak. But we have to make sure that they are weak not just lazy. And we have to make sure that working for a living gives you a much much higher standard of living than not working.

wbks

13th February 2010, 08:21

Since when have they had a chance? We've had 9 years of socialist tax 'n spend policies, bought elections, and pissing 9 years of the biggest surpluses this country has seen down the drain. Thank you Labour. And thank you National for having the balls to fix those damn socialist fuck ups.Lol, throw the socialist word around like it's a bad thing, while National amuse themselves and their mates, and you're paying more for less. Fuck, I should think that a motorcyclist who has just gone through the whole ACC thing should understand that

wbks

13th February 2010, 08:25

New Zealand has to remain a country where we look after the weak. But we have to make sure that they are weak not just lazy. And we have to make sure that working for a living gives you a much much higher standard of living than not working.Sounds good, but lets make it so that you actually have to work for your higher wages, rather than just send repeat rapists and murderers to 24/7 accommodation for a few years, or slurr racism in the name of politics and get paid for it

nallac

13th February 2010, 12:01

You mean to those who earn it?

Is it redistribution to let people keep their own money??

About time too....

If you put in the effort and apply your self in your job to get ahead( not a head in the Clinton way) they tax you more ..
Thats just wrong..

Mully

13th February 2010, 12:39

If you put in the effort and apply your self in your job to get ahead( not a head in the Clinton way) they tax you more ..
Thats just wrong..

Actually, can someone who's lived overseas comment on this:

In NZ, there seems to be a "tall poppy syndrome" - those who own or run the successful businesses and get paid accordingly seem to be hated and must be taxed till they bleed.

Is this a uniquely NZ thing or does this happen elsewhere??

SPman

13th February 2010, 12:57

Looking at the parties labour NZ is very close in approach and leaning to labour UK.

They have been in power 'for ever' it seems also.

Yes NZ (NAT) is looking at raising GST to 15% - In the UK labour have just reversed the VAT holiday and have returned VAT to 17.5%

NZ Nat is in return cutting the top rate to 30 or 33% to compensate - UK labour have raised their top rate to 50%

in NZ stats show that the majority of people moving to OZ are the lower income earners, in the UK stats show that people on higher incomes make up the largest proportion of leavers.

So - who do you think is heading in the right direction?
When I left NZ, I was already in the top 15% of earners - and that was fuck all as it was! There are quite a few Kiwis in higher income levels who move here. The main reason lower paid Kiwis move to Aus, is because they have a better chance of earning a living wage than back home. The median income for wage and salary earners in NZ is $729 a week - $37,908 a year! How the hell do you bring up a family on that? In Aus, full-time adult ordinary time earnings are $1,200.60 pw ($62,431 pa), plus superannuation on top of that (9-10%) and the median is around $44,000 a yr.
Key's tax fiddling will do nothing for the majority of people in the bulk of the income area, between $14-48,000 p.a. (45.8%of the working population),will do a smidge for those on $48-70K (13.1 % of the working population) and lots, to those on over $70k (8.7% of the working population)

Is this a uniquely NZ thing or does this happen elsewhere?? NZ is not too bad compared to most countries, espec in Europe where top tax rates can run to over 55%. Aus top rate is 45%

Ocean1

13th February 2010, 13:29

MaxB

13th February 2010, 13:31

Actually, can someone who's lived overseas comment on this:

In NZ, there seems to be a "tall poppy syndrome" - those who own or run the successful businesses and get paid accordingly seem to be hated and must be taxed till they bleed.

Is this a uniquely NZ thing or does this happen elsewhere??

Tall poppy syndrome is mild compared to Europe. I worked there in the 80s mainly in the UK and France. The politics of envy was like an infection. Blaming the rich was a good way to get elected. Governments that made the very rich richer generally got canned.

Be in the wrong side of town in an upmarket car and you would get a hiding. A pommie mate rode the telecoms boom of the 80s and did well enough to get a new Jag every year. But he couldn't go into town because it would get keyed or have paint srtripper poured on it. He used the wife's battered Golf instead.

I think if there is any difference it may be that most of our business people had to work hard for it. I don't begrudge Stephen Tindall or Michael Hill a cent. But I do have a big problem with the Telecom guy being paid so much for providing such shitty service.

Winston001

13th February 2010, 13:52

Key's tax fiddling will do nothing for the majority of people in the bulk of the income area, between $14-48,000 p.a. (45.8%of the working population),will do a smidge for those on $48-70K (13.1 % of the working population) and lots, to those on over $70k (8.7% of the working population)

Good post but I disagree with the above. At the moment 10% of taxpayers pay 73% of the total tax take. 10%!!! In an egalitarian society that is blatantly unfair. Somehow we need to rebalance this equation so the responsibility for tax is spread more fairly. Increased GST and a flat tax are by far the most simple answers, plus a reduction in the Working For Families threshold.

In fact I like Gareth Morgan's idea of a guaranteed minimum income of $10,000 each. No unemployment or sickness benefits - you get $10,000 as of right if you are not working. We'd still have the DPB but nevertheless the work of WINZ would be hugely reduced.

mashman

13th February 2010, 13:58

Actually, can someone who's lived overseas comment on this:

In NZ, there seems to be a "tall poppy syndrome" - those who own or run the successful businesses and get paid accordingly seem to be hated and must be taxed till they bleed.

Is this a uniquely NZ thing or does this happen elsewhere??

Everything that happens in NZ happens everywhere else (even the apathy of the people... apathy isn't just indigenous to NZ ya know... contrary to popular belief :eek5:).

If you've worked in any large corporate environment before and met those who just "want to get ahead" (just about everyone that's a manager), then you can bet your ass that the general attitude towards FACELESS business owners (and their businesses) will be negative. Shame maybe, but i'd say 9 time out of 10, if it's seen as tall poppy syndrome... then it's most probably justified.

SPman

13th February 2010, 16:18

In fact I like Gareth Morgan's idea of a guaranteed minimum income of $10,000 each. No unemployment or sickness benefits - you get $10,000 as of right if you are not working. We'd still have the DPB but nevertheless the work of WINZ would be hugely reduced.
That's an idea that's been around since the late 70's, at least, and has a lot of merit in it.

Somehow we need to rebalance this equation so the responsibility for tax is spread more fairlyHow - have everyone pay the same tax...so a man with a wife and 2 kids earning $40k a year and having to spend every last cent of it just to survive pays the same as a single guy earning $150K a year. A lot of those on big incomes pay fuck all tax, anyway. I had an accountant mate who was buying 2 houses a year yet still qualified for a community services card, due to his "low" income. Toffee nosed insurance arseholes who, because they were wealthy and sent their kids through uni, all uni students had plenty of money - they had no conception of what it was like to work in a shitty low paying job (because that's all you can get, regardless of your qualifications). They had an air of disdain for anyone who couldn't buy a bottle of wine a night and considered every penny they "earnt" theirs, and how dare the government try and take any off them and give it to "Dole Bludgers and DPB whores" - the worst part was, you couldn't reason with them in any way. If 5% of the "lessers" were cheats, bludgers and crims, they regarded the other 95% the same. Most people don't begrudge others who have got to the top through hard graft and honest dealings - I certainly don't.
. Just as there will always be people who can make money, whatever they turn their hand to, so there will be people who work their rings out and never seem to get anywhere - a lot more than there are the others. Should they be consigned to spiral down the poverty trap, regardless. Research has shown that societies that don't have the extremes of very rich and very poor, are usually far more harmonious, happy and equitable. I don't begrudge paying any of my tax, as long as it is used wisely - if that includes evening out of the extremes of wealth and poverty, good.
Tax will always be a contentious issue - unfortunately, a fair and equitable society is also a contentious issue.

avgas

13th February 2010, 21:26

In NZ, there seems to be a "tall poppy syndrome" - those who own or run the successful businesses and get paid accordingly seem to be hated and must be taxed till they bleed.

Is this a uniquely NZ thing or does this happen elsewhere??
Sometimes it happens elsewhere (depends entirely to the context of the country - Chinese LOVE their bosses, and hate them). The problem with New Zealand is its double standards. We seem adament that YOU MUST GO TO UNIVERSITY......yet we hammer the shit out of them at the other end. You are considered "not part of the team" if you try to climb the ranks. Which is why most of us get stuck in the middle ground. The top will try and push us down, the bottom dont like you climbing.
I frequently do all the work to prove my worth in a company, to prove I am skilled enough to the job above me - but then you enter the "title game" where they hold you rank ransom - reapply for the job you already doing etc
In the meantime the guys at the level you are working with wil treat you as a traitor. 1 year later after you have made no progress you move on.
Employee turnover in NZ is shocking. There is almost no incetives to keep an employee and allow them to climb.
Once during an infuriating interview with a firm, the engineering manager asked me a question - I don't know what he wanted me to answer so I told the solid truth.
"Where do you see youself in 5 years time?" to which I answered "In your job".......turned out that company wanted a blind drone, so I told them honestly that I had asperations above what they wanted to give.
About 50% of the companies in NZ are like this.....all due the double standards of the employees.

mashman

13th February 2010, 22:05

Sometimes it happens elsewhere (depends entirely to the context of the country - Chinese LOVE their bosses, and hate them). The problem with New Zealand is its double standards. We seem adament that YOU MUST GO TO UNIVERSITY......yet we hammer the shit out of them at the other end. You are considered "not part of the team" if you try to climb the ranks. Which is why most of us get stuck in the middle ground. The top will try and push us down, the bottom dont like you climbing.
I frequently do all the work to prove my worth in a company, to prove I am skilled enough to the job above me - but then you enter the "title game" where they hold you rank ransom - reapply for the job you already doing etc
In the meantime the guys at the level you are working with wil treat you as a traitor. 1 year later after you have made no progress you move on.
Employee turnover in NZ is shocking. There is almost no incetives to keep an employee and allow them to climb.
Once during an infuriating interview with a firm, the engineering manager asked me a question - I don't know what he wanted me to answer so I told the solid truth.
"Where do you see youself in 5 years time?" to which I answered "In your job".......turned out that company wanted a blind drone, so I told them honestly that I had asperations above what they wanted to give.
About 50% of the companies in NZ are like this.....all due the double standards of the employees.

I believe they call them, entrenched management. And they'll do most anything to not let go... funny what money does to people...

avgas

13th February 2010, 23:53

I believe they call them, entrenched management. And they'll do most anything to not let go... funny what money does to people...

Sad but true. However NZ is a little bit different. While the management is entrenched, the workers are determined to only treat them as the bad guy. Seems the buck shifts up instead of down. Y'see its easier to hack a tall poppy at its roots. Kills it faster.

Brian d marge

14th February 2010, 00:24

yup , id agree with that ...demo

Fuck I love work

Next time youse fellas bikes breaks down in the middle of friggen no where
It's me !!!
And the friggen reprobates I work with
The secretary is lying on the sofa emailing her friends
we have got the music cranked up
I've polished off a fair amount of laughing frog ( whiskey ) Hiroshi next to me has become a Zen master I am in the bog emailing kiwi biker
Today I was looking at Airbox , tip number1 airbox わ.....いらんない
I'm Rick James beeches ,,,u motherfkers can walk

Stephen

golfmade

14th February 2010, 00:29

I'm trying to understand what Stephen just wrote but it's not working. I know it's not haiku that's for sure.

avgas

14th February 2010, 00:59

Brian d marge

14th February 2010, 04:42

FLOYD OF COURSE

Stephen

Brian d marge

14th February 2010, 04:44

it cant even think more than 2 syllables

and it all happens again tomorrow

btw its 2 now

Stephen

mashman

14th February 2010, 09:59

Sad but true. However NZ is a little bit different. While the management is entrenched, the workers are determined to only treat them as the bad guy. Seems the buck shifts up instead of down. Y'see its easier to hack a tall poppy at its roots. Kills it faster.

I doubt NZ is that different to the rest of the world. Workers around the world are all the same. We just want what we think we're worth, irrespective of how much we're actually worth in terms of how the business values our contribution... which is generally, the main role of your manager... validating your worth... Accountability does indeed flow up, but if you hit entrenched management... well that's where the employees story ends... Entrenched managers must have something to offer the organisation (after all they are entrenched with the blessing of their superiors)... otherwise they'd be replaced. Simple really. How do you protect your lifestyle... you protect your job! How do you protect your job... BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!! passing the buck upwards ha ha ha, great until it bounces of the "ceiling" and comes rocketing back down... These guys are all over the world... this problem is not specific to NZ...

Heh... as for killing from the root. You're gonna need a much bigger scythe than you think...

wbks

14th February 2010, 11:17

Pascal

15th February 2010, 06:03

Lol, throw the socialist word around like it's a bad thing

It is a bad thing. Theft from hard working people, disguised as enforced charity with a strong authoritarian / control streak? You don't think that is bad? Fuck man.

Pascal

15th February 2010, 06:06

is because they have a better chance of earning a living wage than back home. The median income for wage and salary earners in NZ is $729 a week - $37,908 a year! How the hell do you bring up a family on that

Thank Socialism for that. We've seen people punished through punitive taxes for trying to earn more over the last 9 years. We've seen Labour increase welfare to such a degree that almost anyone earning under $60,000 receives some form of state assistance! Socialism has taught New Zealanders that the government will take care of them, that only the government CAN take care of them.

davereid

15th February 2010, 06:50

Taking from those who can afford it, to give to those who need it. Pretty simple philosophy that has a few names... Clue: "Tall poppy syndrome" isn't one of them.

The word you are looking for is theft.

Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: \ˈtheft\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thīefth; akin to Old English thēof thief
Date: before 12th century

1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b :the taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent

wbks

15th February 2010, 07:19

Lets see how anti-left you are when you or one of your family gets a serious illness or injury... No expensive health insurance? Better be ready to pay a pretty penny 'less you want them to put you out on the street. Simple fact is: There is a reason that people are happier in certain European countries, and the reason people can't cope with socialism in the rest of the world is because they can't cope with the idea of giving their precious money (therefor expensive cars/property) away for the sake of a better country and fundamentals. Because the bastion point of capitalism (USA) is such a great fucking place for the hundreds of thousands if not millions who can't afford to browse the internet on their expensive computers and spout how great the more pure capitalism is. All capitalist countries have an influence of socialism in them, I just think it's good that NZ has a stronger influence. I guess it's like kiwis to complain about people losing their social conscience and then get all pissed if they have to live by a system which is exactly that, because it involves sacrifice

wbks

15th February 2010, 07:29

It is a bad thing. Theft from hard working people, disguised as enforced charity with a strong authoritarian / control streak? You don't think that is bad? Fuck man.
Theft is a big draw from contribution, and as for the strong authoritrian/control streak... We're in NZ, not Soviet Russia circa 1937

Mully

15th February 2010, 08:00

Taking from those who can afford it, to give to those who need it. Pretty simple philosophy that has a few names... Clue: "Tall poppy syndrome" isn't one of them.

Those who need it I don't object to. Those who view welfare (particularly the DPB) as a "career" I object to.

But I wasn't talking about tax in particular. I accept that (as a rule) you have to pay tax as being a part of society (unless you can avoid it) - I mean the opinion that anyone who has money (especially those who have earnt their money) are bastards who everyone else should hate.

Pascal

15th February 2010, 08:38

Lets see how anti-left you are when you or one of your family gets a serious illness or injury...

Blessed private health insurance. Because you see, under this socialist system when my daughter was diagnosed by the White Cross Emergency room with meningites and rushed to Starship hospital, it took 6 hours on the socialist health system to be seen. Time in which she could have died, where no matter how I tried to get her attention, they kept on telling me they couldn't see her yet.

Now I'm private. Now if something goes wrong my family gets treatment. Not excuses.

the reason people can't cope with socialism in the rest of the world is because they can't cope with the idea of giving their precious money (therefor expensive cars/property) away for the sake of a better country

You forget the poor people in the middle. Those who fall just outside the welfare brackets and who are caught in the punitive tax rates. For them their disposable income is next to fuck all. I know a fair number of people on lower incomes than myself who have more money to spend, thanks to the "redistribution of wealth". They get to afford Sky. New cars. (Well, less than 10 years old, leastways)

the reason people can't cope with socialism in the rest of the world is because they can't cope with the idea of giving their precious money (therefor expensive cars/property) away for the sake of a better country

Second point on your general quote. New Zealand really is not a country filled with helpless invalids that need other people to provide for them. We, as a country, provide free access to education. We provide a lot of services that empowers people to take themselves off the "poor" line and taking responsibility for their own lives. They don't need to government to take care of them. They need to step up and understand that changes to their position relative to the average income will not happen overnight. They will need to dedicate time and effort to making that change and it might not happen in their lifetime. But their children might have a better future. I know. My family went through that over the last three generations. It is the hard work of my forebears that got me to where I am today. And, with my hard work, my daughters will have a better position in life than I had. Hopefully they'll carry that on for their children. And in a few generations we might be "wealthy" too.

Unfortunately socialism takes that away from people. You keep on giving them something for nothing. Eventually they just stop doing anything for themselves, because the poor deluded fools in their "generosity" with other people's money have killed any incentive for them to do anything.

mashman

15th February 2010, 09:04

Second point on your general quote. New Zealand really is not a country filled with helpless invalids that need other people to provide for them. We, as a country, provide free access to education. We provide a lot of services that empowers people to take themselves off the "poor" line and taking responsibility for their own lives. They don't need to government to take care of them. They need to step up and understand that changes to their position relative to the average income will not happen overnight. They will need to dedicate time and effort to making that change and it might not happen in their lifetime. But their children might have a better future. I know. My family went through that over the last three generations. It is the hard work of my forebears that got me to where I am today. And, with my hard work, my daughters will have a better position in life than I had. Hopefully they'll carry that on for their children. And in a few generations we might be "wealthy" too.

You're missing 1 rather important thing there. Maybe the people that are living on the "breadline" are happy with their lives... maybe not their lot... but with their lives... that being the case, even in eutopia, these people would likely do exactly the same, irrespective of the resources available to them... it may well be that's just how they wish to live their lives. Unfortunately society does not allow these people to live their life their way! Therefore the only alternative is let them starve to death, have them commit crimes, essentially do something to get the green it takes to live their lives their way. You're assuming that they all want to work... Why? Because they obviously don't...

Pascal

15th February 2010, 09:35

it may well be that's just how they wish to live their lives. Unfortunately society does not allow these people to live their life their way! Therefore the only alternative is let them starve to death, have them commit crimes, essentially do something to get the green it takes to live their lives their way. You're assuming that they all want to work... Why? Because they obviously don't...

Why should they be allowed to live their lives as they want when I cannot because I have to pay for their lifestyle? If they don't want to work there is no reason for me to support them.

mashman

15th February 2010, 10:04

Why should they be allowed to live their lives as they want when I cannot because I have to pay for their lifestyle? If they don't want to work there is no reason for me to support them.

heh. You have no choice in the matter! If you believe that you accumulating money and stuff gives YOU a better lifestyle, then you're HUGELY mistaken... somewhere along the way people become happy. If that happens to be with them on the dole... then that's the way it is and you have no choice but to support them.

What gives you, or the government for that matter, the right to tell people that they have to work?

avgas

15th February 2010, 10:58

What gives you, or the government for that matter, the right to tell people that they have to work?

Darwin's Theory

Pascal

15th February 2010, 11:05

What gives you, or the government for that matter, the right to tell people that they have to work?

Absolutely nothing except hunger.

What gives them the right to expect me to feed them?

MSTRS

15th February 2010, 11:07

What gives you, or the government for that matter, the right to tell people that they have to work?

Nothing. However, if the funds that allow them to live without working, were removed, then those people would have to find a(nother) way to feed, house and clothe themselves, wouldn't they?
Nobody says you have to work, but you do need to be responsible for you and yours.

Ixion

15th February 2010, 11:23

heh. You have no choice in the matter! If you believe that you accumulating money and stuff gives YOU a better lifestyle, then you're HUGELY mistaken... somewhere along the way people become happy. If that happens to be with them on the dole... then that's the way it is and you have no choice but to support them.

What gives you, or the government for that matter, the right to tell people that they have to work?

Oh, but we do have a choice. or, would if we had a sensible governmental system. Ever hear of work camps? Don't want to work? Fine. Mess hut is that way. They'll give you three square meals a day - provided you turn in the work chit your labour supervisor gives you when you complete each day's work assignment to has satisfaction. No chit, no meal.

What gives the State the right? Same right as membership of almost anything - you want to be a member, you follow the rules : which may be established by decree (KB) or by popular voice (a democracy, if anyone could ever find one); or anything in between. Don't want to follow the club rules? that's fine, but you won't be a member any more. Don't want to follow the rules of this society? That's fine, but you won't be a member of that society any more. Go find another country where the people are willing to support those who don't want to make any contribution to the society (note that I'm including things like writing poetry, bring up children as a contrbution) .

Vote Communist - for a society that benefits the worker, not the shirker. It's the only way that makes sense.

MSTRS

15th February 2010, 11:32

Vote Communist - for a society that benefits the worker, not the shirker. It's the only way that makes sense.

No way. It's just another way to keep the masses in line (all right if 'you' are the Chairman)

The only system that is fair is one that allows everyone to do what they will, but not at the expense of anyone else. Anarchy rulz, OK?

mashman

15th February 2010, 12:55

Absolutely nothing except hunger.

What gives them the right to expect me to feed them?

There are plenty of ways to get food without having to use $$$...

Would you let them die if they couldn't feed themselves?

SPman

15th February 2010, 13:01

No way. It's just another way to keep the masses in line (all right if 'you' are the Chairman)

The only system that is fair is one that allows everyone to do what they will, but not at the expense of anyone else. Anarchy rulz, OK?Anarchism in it's purest form, would be the ideal..everyone doing what they want but still doing their bit to help the community - unfortunately, like all other theoretical systems, communism, capitolism, every other -ism, it gets fucked up by those with giant ego's who want everything to work for them, and fuck everyone else!

MSTRS

15th February 2010, 13:02

mashman

15th February 2010, 13:04

Nothing. However, if the funds that allow them to live without working, were removed, then those people would have to find a(nother) way to feed, house and clothe themselves, wouldn't they?
Nobody says you have to work, but you do need to be responsible for you and yours.

Pah! you think that they'd just say, "fair enough, i better start pulling my weight"??? What if the jobs aren't there to feed those you have removed funds from? how do you qualify for support? who gets priority, familiaes with kids? who decides the priority? but they would indeed find another way... and likely it wouldn't suit society! :crazy:

And we wonder why people don't grasp the Woodhouse principles when it comes to ACC, when all we want to do is look after our own!

MSTRS

15th February 2010, 13:12

I never said that is what should happen. However, there are plenty of people on the dole/whatever that would get a severe lesson in the need for self-responsibility, if it did.
I'm also not naive enough to think that many wouldn't just take what they want in other ways.
People like that are always gonna be a problem...for everyone else.

SPman

15th February 2010, 13:16

Good post but I disagree with the above. At the moment 10% of taxpayers pay 73% of the total tax take. 10%!!! In an egalitarian society that is blatantly unfair. Somehow we need to rebalance this equation so the responsibility for tax is spread more fairly. Increased GST and a flat tax are by far the most simple answers, plus a reduction in the Working For Families threshold.

10% of people have more income than the bottom 50 % of us combined. The net wealth of 10% of people is 20 times the wealth of 50% of us combined. In fact, the wealthiest 10% have more wealth than everyone else put together. 70% of kiwis earn less than $40,000 a year.
So of course they will pay more tax!!!!

mashman

15th February 2010, 13:17

Oh, but we do have a choice. or, would if we had a sensible governmental system. Ever hear of work camps? Don't want to work? Fine. Mess hut is that way. They'll give you three square meals a day - provided you turn in the work chit your labour supervisor gives you when you complete each day's work assignment to has satisfaction. No chit, no meal.

What gives the State the right? Same right as membership of almost anything - you want to be a member, you follow the rules : which may be established by decree (KB) or by popular voice (a democracy, if anyone could ever find one); or anything in between. Don't want to follow the club rules? that's fine, but you won't be a member any more. Don't want to follow the rules of this society? That's fine, but you won't be a member of that society any more. Go find another country where the people are willing to support those who don't want to make any contribution to the society (note that I'm including things like writing poetry, bring up children as a contrbution) .

Vote Communist - for a society that benefits the worker, not the shirker. It's the only way that makes sense.

That's the problem/solution. We all have a choice. We all do/see things differently. The rest of your post mentions the rules etc... aye, we humans just love rules... especially when they can be bent or even broken... but trying to turn humans into worker bees won't work either...

Heh, communism eh! Would it work. Dunno, be better off asking the country as they're the ones who have to "buy" into it...

Pascal

15th February 2010, 14:07

There are plenty of ways to get food without having to use $$$...

Would you let them die if they couldn't feed themselves?

Is a discussion a series of non-related points to you - similar to a connect the dots puzzle with nothing to connect ? We were discussing people who willing chose not to work. It's not a case of them being unable to work (I would help those). It is a case of them not being willing to work. (I would not help those)

Pascal

15th February 2010, 14:14

10% of people have more income than the bottom 50 % of us combined. The net wealth of 10% of people is 20 times the wealth of 50% of us combined. In fact, the wealthiest 10% have more wealth than everyone else put together. 70% of kiwis earn less than $40,000 a year.
So of course they will pay more tax!!!!

You're making a typical mistake by focussing on the individual, rather than the family. It's been used by a number of websites recently to try and divide rich and poor in New Zealand, by pointing out that the poor people earning less than $40,000 will get nothing from a tax cut, but will have to pay increased GST. A rather clever deception, if you ask me. Now although a bit of a National mouthpiece, David Farrar made this very good point today:

as of June 2009, the median household income was around $64,000.

He goes on to say that if that household includes a child the median income is around $75,000. Yes, 70% might earn less than $40,000. Their household incomes are significantly higher. Do you think $64,000 is terribly poor? That is $4000 above the Labour Party's "Rich Prick" threshold.

mashman

15th February 2010, 14:21

Is a discussion a series of non-related points to you - similar to a connect the dots puzzle with nothing to connect ? We were discussing people who willing chose not to work. It's not a case of them being unable to work (I would help those). It is a case of them not being willing to work. (I would not help those)

I was just replying to what you had written. You've still not worked out that things have a knock on effect... ;) just like discussions... and i was replying in context.

What's the difference between the 2? One works, one doesn't... either of them could be wealthy, either of them could be poor, either of them could be exceptionally smart, either of them could be dumb... but both of them may well lie when it comes to handout time... How do you tell the difference?

Pascal

15th February 2010, 14:25

I was just replying to what you had written. You've still not worked out that things have a knock on effect... ;) just like discussions... and i was replying in context.

Actually, no. You lost the context when you changed the tack from "wouldn't" to "couldn't". The two are quite different.

mashman

15th February 2010, 15:11

Actually, no. You lost the context when you changed the tack from "wouldn't" to "couldn't". The two are quite different.

Cheers for the explanation... but I still think the context stands as I was asking a question that's apt for both groups, the can'ts and the won'ts. Would you let them die if they couldn't feed themselves? It's a loaded question I agree, but was curious as to how you, or anyone else, could justify an answer. You tried, you can live, you didn't, sorry!

It kind of flies in the face of letting people do what they want to do... just curious how that can be justified.

avgas

15th February 2010, 22:24

We all have a choice.
Bullshit according to your theory. Where is my choice to keep what I earn?
Where is my choice to not support the systems?
What choice? Your choice is a joke - just like your argument that not all can work.
I have been fortunate enough to see men with no legs climb mountains, people with no arms paint paintings and people with no voice shout.
How does not having any jobs do anything to not being able to work? You said it yourself, not only money brings in food.

Pascal

16th February 2010, 05:30

Cheers for the explanation... but I still think the context stands as I was asking a question that's apt for both groups, the can'ts and the won'ts. Would you let them die if they couldn't feed themselves? It's a loaded question I agree, but was curious as to how you, or anyone else, could justify an answer. You tried, you can live, you didn't, sorry!

It kind of flies in the face of letting people do what they want to do... just curious how that can be justified.

If I resign my job today, seeing as you have a nice, shiny bike (Much nicer than mine, thus you must be a "rich prick") , will you feed my family so I can play video games and go for rides?

From your comments thus far you are saying that yes, you will and that yes, you should. Because to not do so is removing my choice from me and that it cannot be justified.

davereid

16th February 2010, 06:43

What gives you, or the government for that matter, the right to tell people that they have to work?

Nothing gives me the right to force other people to work. Nothing gives me an obligation to feed them if they dont.

Swoop

16th February 2010, 08:34

Heh, communism eh! Would it work.
It was a roaring success in the USSR...
North Korea loves it... (for a few more months, anyway. Right on the edge of collapse at the moment.)

Winston001

16th February 2010, 12:38

SPman

16th February 2010, 13:53

Originally Posted by Kiwiblog as of June 2009, the median household income was around $64,000.

He goes on to say that if that household includes a child the median income is around $75,000. Yes, 70% might earn less than $40,000. Their household incomes are significantly higher. Do you think $64,000 is terribly poor? That is $4000 above the Labour Party's "Rich Prick" threshold.
So, what are the facts about household income? Information on income distribution within households is hard to come by. The tax system focuses on individuals, and so does not collect it, while studies on household income itself focus on the aggregate rather than who earns what (and usually use equivalised figures in order to draw conclusions about actual living standards to boot).According to the most recent Household Labour Force Survey (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/work_income_and_spending/Employment/HouseholdLabourForceSurvey_HOTPDec09qtr.aspx), there were 1,426,000 households in New Zealand. So, at most, 20% of households will benefit from cuts to the top tax rate, and slightly over half - 52% - from cuts to the upper middle rate. Which sounds a lot better than the individual figures, but the fundamental reality is unchanged: cuts to the top rate are irrelevant to fully 80% of households. Cuts to the middle rate go further, but still leave around half the population out in the cold.

SPman

16th February 2010, 13:57

Could you give sources for this please?
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/work_income_and_spending/Income/NZIncomeSurvey_HOTPJun08qtr/Commentary.aspx

Pascal

16th February 2010, 14:21

Which sounds a lot better than the individual figures, but the fundamental reality is unchanged: cuts to the top rate are irrelevant to fully 80% of households. Cuts to the middle rate go further, but still leave around half the population out in the cold.

Out in the cold? Are they not receiving Working for Families and in a percentage of cases pay ZERO tax anyway? When they start contributing more to the taxation base I'll start worrying about cuts to top taxation rates affecting them.

Note as well that the government has indicated that benefits to these groups will be increased to compensate for the additional hit of GST with an effect to those who own rental properties. Wait. Low income earners with rental properties ... why am I not so worried about them?

So really, isn't this mostly a win-win type situation?

Edit: Thinking about that median and considering that when Labour introduced the punitive 39% rate a fair number of high income earners reshuffled their earnings to remain below that threshold ... did you realise the median weekly income from all sources was $1,271? Translating to roughly $66,000 per year? It would be interesting to see the spread for various brackets on that as it might be closely aligned around that median instead of being very spread out.

Coldrider

16th February 2010, 14:23

Bush lawyer.
If you are buying and selling a house (or shares etc) as a business then you are liable for tax and the ird do go for you. Even on your family home. Buying a house or shares for a long term hold is not liable to tax and consequently the ird don't go after it.Perhaps this attachment IR313 IRD guidlines on buying and selling (any) property will bring you into the picture more clearly.
Note this publication does not bring into the equation 'associated persons', of which you would already know about of course.

wbks

16th February 2010, 17:06

Blessed private health insurance. Because you see, under this socialist system when my daughter was diagnosed by the White Cross Emergency room with meningites and rushed to Starship hospital, it took 6 hours on the socialist health system to be seen. Time in which she could have died, where no matter how I tried to get her attention, they kept on telling me they couldn't see her yet. So get private insurance, then. You have the option. Not everyone does.

You forget the poor people in the middle. Those who fall just outside the welfare brackets and who are caught in the punitive tax rates. For them their disposable income is next to fuck all. I know a fair number of people on lower incomes than myself who have more money to spend, thanks to the "redistribution of wealth". They get to afford Sky. New cars. (Well, less than 10 years old, leastwaysThe fact that people on the dole get more cash than the working class is a matter of bad management. You're right, people on the dole shouldn't get more disposable income than those who contribute.

We, as a country, provide free access to education. We provide a lot of services that empowers people to take themselves off the "poor" line and taking responsibility for their own lives. Funnily enough, these "services that empowers people" are considered socialist. Still thinking of Socialists like lepers?
They don't need to government to take care of them. As we see in government less states in Africa...
They need to step up and understand that changes to their position relative to the average income will not happen overnight. They will need to dedicate time and effort to making that change and it might not happen in their lifetime. But their children might have a better future. I know. My family went through that over the last three generations. It is the hard work of my forebears that got me to where I am today. And, with my hard work, my daughters will have a better position in life than I had. Hopefully they'll carry that on for their children. And in a few generations we might be "wealthy" too.
Unfortunately socialism takes that away from people. You keep on giving them something for nothing. Eventually they just stop doing anything for themselves, because the poor deluded fools in their "generosity" with other people's money have killed any incentive for them to do anything.

Socialism does not rule out a degree of capitalism, there will always be incentive to become "wealthy" and that is what many people do. Socialism shouldn't take that away from people (reference to the dole system as you mentioned). Maybe some of you need to learn to differentiate from Socialism and communism
There will always be incentive to become wealthy, but there should always be moral obligation to help those less fortunate, and enough common sense to ensure that public services are well funded.

wbks

16th February 2010, 17:21

Anarchism in it's purest form, would be the ideal..everyone doing what they want but still doing their bit to help the community - unfortunately, like all other theoretical systems, communism, capitolism, every other -ism, it gets fucked up by those with giant ego's who want everything to work for them, and fuck everyone else!Exactly. A system which reduces governmental power (lets face it, doing without it while still prospering would be a dream... and that's all) but everyone still contributes... Libertarian Socialism comes to mind

It was a roaring success in the USSR...
North Korea loves it... (for a few more months, anyway. Right on the edge of collapse at the moment.)Yea, just as Capitalism was a roaring success for any country that ever was ruled by a genocidal dictator... Subtle hint;)

Miscreant

16th February 2010, 23:21

Perhaps this attachment IR313 IRD guidlines on buying and selling (any) property will bring you into the picture more clearly.
Note this publication does not bring into the equation 'associated persons', of which you would already know about of course.

no thanks, didn't help at all as that's pretty much my understanding of the situation. Buy with the intention of selling for a profit I.e as you would do so as a business and you're liable. It was never intended to be a complete and exhaustive explanation but a summary.

Pascal

17th February 2010, 05:44

So get private insurance, then. You have the option. Not everyone does.

I do have private insurance. And yes, everyone should be able to do so. But, unfortunately, socialism keeps these people poor by punishing them if they get richer. You've seen it happen in New Zealand. If we had that bloody boot off our necks, maybe we as a society could advance a bit.

Funnily enough, these "services that empowers people" are considered socialist.

Differentiate between services that help people advance themselves and services that soothe Chardonnay socialists' consciences.

There will always be incentive to become wealthy, but there should always be moral obligation to help those less fortunate, and enough common sense to ensure that public services are well funded.

You've got that right. A moral obligation. One that a person, who has been raised with good values, will willingly accept and do. Have you noticed, for example, the level of private giving in America? But not an obligation enforced under the dictates of the state. That is not a moral obligation. That is theft.

Coldrider

17th February 2010, 09:10

CGT wasn't required really - if you buy a house with the intention of making money, you should be paying tax on it when you sell. IRD have never really chased that.

A good one liner on tax liability.

Bush lawyer.
If you are buying and selling a house (or shares etc) as a business then you are liable for tax and the ird do go for you. Even on your family home. Buying a house or shares for a long term hold is not liable to tax and consequently the ird don't go after it.

It is the intention, not length of ownership that is important. Note does NOT have to be a business.

no thanks, didn't help at all as that's pretty much my understanding of the situation. Buy with the intention of selling for a profit I.e as you would do so as a business and you're liable. It was never intended to be a complete and exhaustive explanation but a summary.

Best part of the IR313 is that is is free.

Note again does not have to be a business.

You have gone full circle and backed up Mullys original one liner.

There is no complete and exhaustive list, and the best part is, capital gains tax is not even complicated.

Mully

17th February 2010, 09:19

It is the intention, not length of ownership that is important. Note does NOT have to be a business.

You have gone full circle and backed up Mullys original one liner.

Excuse me, can I please see your Bush Lawyer's licence?

Coldrider

17th February 2010, 09:26

Excuse me, can I please see your Bush Lawyer's licence?

Dear Bush Client.

You can't afford my charge out rate.

Kindest regards

Clockwork

17th February 2010, 13:19

... But, unfortunately, socialism keeps these people poor by punishing them if they get richer.

I'm already paying income tax at the highest rate. How will I be punished by getting richer, if my salery were to increase by $10,000 I'd still be $6,000 better off.

In fact, if I were paying at the lowest rate only and right of the threashold of the next applicable rate and got a pay rise of $1,000 I'd still be better off!

Am I missing something? Where is this disincentive to work hard and earn more that I keep hearing about?

Pascal

17th February 2010, 13:55

Am I missing something? Where is this disincentive to work hard and earn more that I keep hearing about?

There is a point where the additional responsibility, work and stress is not worth the 61% effective increase you get in income. Especially when it gets spread over months. This is compounded when it means less in terms of Working for Families (lolwut), thus effectively decreasing your income.

So a question in turn. Why did so many of the wealthy individuals in New Zealand re-organise their finances in such a way that they'd avoid the top tax-rate?

Clockwork

17th February 2010, 14:27

So a question in turn. Why did so many of the wealthy individuals in New Zealand re-organise their finances in such a way that they'd avoid the top tax-rate?

Bloody obvious, fiscal efficiency, paying no more than you need to, greed, call it what you will.

While I accept that the pitching of certain welfare benefits, working for familiies, whatever fucks up the equations for some and may well stand rethinking, for the rest of us your argument doesn't really stand up because ther will always be some threshold of tax deduction and you could as easily argue "why should I bother unless if I only get to keep 70%.... 80%... 90%" Unless you feel that there should be a cap on the total amount of income tax anyone should required to pay and once you reach that point all else is tax free.

Seems to me that the top income earners, the so called "best and brightest" that we are all frightned will sell themselves off overseas are more than capable of justifying saleries to themselves of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. Personally, I'd happly swap my tax bill with theirs if they'd swap their incomes with mine!

mashman

17th February 2010, 15:15

Bullshit according to your theory. Where is my choice to keep what I earn?
Where is my choice to not support the systems?
What choice? Your choice is a joke - just like your argument that not all can work.
I have been fortunate enough to see men with no legs climb mountains, people with no arms paint paintings and people with no voice shout.
How does not having any jobs do anything to not being able to work? You said it yourself, not only money brings in food.

You do keep what you earn don't you? You can choose not to support the systems, cash jobs. Not all can work, some through disability, some through obesity, mental injury etc...
But you're right, my argument is somewhat playing the other side of the fence... but that fence does exist and there is another side. I'm still undecided, in some areas, as to which side I would choose. Everything we seem to do these days is geared towards making money. Sometimes for yourself, sometimes for others and in a lot cases for both. Wrapping your head around the needs of a complete stranger that doesn't do anything seems not to warrant any positive thought and just because it's based on their contribution to society, and it's mainly financially focussed...

If I resign my job today, seeing as you have a nice, shiny bike (Much nicer than mine, thus you must be a "rich prick") , will you feed my family so I can play video games and go for rides?

From your comments thus far you are saying that yes, you will and that yes, you should. Because to not do so is removing my choice from me and that it cannot be justified.

Well thanks for giving me the choice...

As long as you don't smell like a frenchman Pascal, and you don't have a PS3...

Nothing gives me the right to force other people to work. Nothing gives me an obligation to feed them if they dont.

Absolutely. But some are saying that if you don't work they won't pay for you (conditional), so it kinda pushes them into work or towards the dole as you need money to exist in this world. Praise be to the government for saving their asses?

If it's all down to the human perception of another human being and how we rate their worth, albeit total strangers, then nothing the government do will allow for the redistribution of wealth, no matter how hard they try...