Dear Mr English, I don't want a tax cut [Archive]

shrub

17th May 2010, 08:36

Mully

17th May 2010, 08:56

Headbanger

17th May 2010, 08:57

Fuckers are welcome to cut back on the gravy trains and get their thieving fucking hands off my fucking money.

shrub

17th May 2010, 09:02

(BTW, why shouldn't "clever and hard working" people be rewarded by getting to keep more of the fruits of their labour?)

As a clever and hard working person, I'm more interested in finding new ways to earn more and having the infrastructure that rewards entrepreneurialism and creativity than to get a few cents an hour extra in tax (that will go straight away in GST).

aprilia_RS250

17th May 2010, 09:27

shrub

17th May 2010, 09:35

You spending an extra 30-40 a week is much more effective when it ends up in private business hands vs govt coffers.

All of the stuff you have listed can be supplied to you in much greater and better quantities even if the tax rate has been reduced, it's just that governments are immensely inneffiecient and contain huge admin costs.

You should start a club with Sam Morgan
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3599029/Trade-Me-founder-Sam-Morgan-says-tax-burden-falls-on-workers

Maybe I should - he's smart and rich.

It is a myth that private business is more efficient than government, but one that Act works hard to promulgate and one that will have us all paying even more for ACC. Modern government is surprisingly efficient and well run, and is pretty well a match for the private sector. The big difference is that in government there is no requirement to produce a profit for the owners (increasingly offshore entities) because we are the owners therefore state supplied goods and services can be offered at a lower cost than the private sector.

MisterD

17th May 2010, 09:40

A question for you: Which of these is likely to be the most efficiently spent money?

a) Someone spending another person's money on A.N.Other.
b) Someone spending another person's money on themselves.
c) Someone spending their own money on A.N.Other
d) Someone spending their own money on themselves.

The UK Labour party have just provided a 13 year demonstration that hosepiping other peoples money at stuff doesn't actually do anything to fix a problem.

Simple really. Gimme the tax cut Bill.

Mully

17th May 2010, 09:45

Great thread.

This'll be a good one.

Swoop

17th May 2010, 09:47

It is a myth that private business is more efficient than government,... Modern government is surprisingly efficient and well run...
Buahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! :rofl:

*gasp*

Buahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a! :rofl::rofl:

Tank

17th May 2010, 09:51

Dear Mr English,

Im smart and clever - I earn good money - and I suppose I dont really need a Tax cut.

But fuck it - Im really looking forward to the one that is coming my way.

Its great to have a g'ment that is smart enough to make changes and gets away from the loony lefts idea of borrow, borrow, borrow spend, spend, spend and pandering to the bottom 5% of New Zealand.

Im putting my tax cut towards a nice holiday in Samoan beach resort.

aprilia_RS250

17th May 2010, 10:03

You forgot that private companies compete for business. Because they compete things such as price wars, product differentiation and extra services must be provided by a market determined price. Hence you get a better product from a private business vs a government one. A clear example is Kiwibank, they charge similar to market rates but you still get a shit service.

Marmoot

17th May 2010, 10:07

Instead of an extra $30 - $40 a week in my pocket, which I'll only spend, what I want is:...

52 x $30-$40 = $1560 - $2080
And you want all those for that amount?
Damn....that's cheap.

Quasievil

17th May 2010, 10:19

Dear Mr English, please give me a massive TAX CUT

Take whats needed for roads and essential Infrastructure, as for the rest give it to me I will take care of myself privately.

You see Mr English, history proves to me the the government cant run a health system a education system or any system well so frankly GET THE FUCK OUT OF IT
Im intelligent and can take care of my own needs in this regard, you stick to the basics , roads police and err well thats about it

Oh and for the people on the Dole, if they cant support themselves via their own families to fucken bad Im done supporting every lazy fucker in this country

Tank

17th May 2010, 10:26

mashman

17th May 2010, 10:35

Mr Key today:

"If you are talking about can there be tax cuts at the top end, in my view the answer to that has to be yes. The reason for that is you need the people that are paying the top tax rate to stay in your economy. Whether they are your doctors, your entrepreneurs or your scientists - I mean we can be envious about these things but without those people in our economy all the rest of us will either have less people paying tax or fundamentally less services that they provide."

if the left had its way - we would be rid of the rich pricks (we will tax 'em out of the country) - and then it will be a beautiful socialist paradise with no evil businessmen (capital bastards all of em).

Of course they forget - that only leave the 'poor' to fund the roads, hospitals, working for families etc - and so it becomes a downward spiral. Of course they forget all about that - and simply expect the government to borrow more money.

"This would give someone on $50,000 an extra $20 a week in the hand but when the GST rise is included, it reduces to $6."

ooooo i can hear the till bells ringin now... Most of these rich folk don't need tax cuts BECAUSE THEY DON'T PAY ANY FUCKIN TAX... and the above quote from Donkey illustrates what the "masses" believe to be true... Get the fuckers out that are hoarding the money, because they spend most of it overseas because there's fuck all to buy here...

Tank

17th May 2010, 10:40

"This would give someone on $50,000 an extra $20 a week in the hand but when the GST rise is included, it reduces to $6."

ooooo i can hear the till bells ringin now... Most of these rich folk don't need tax cuts BECAUSE THEY DON'T PAY ANY FUCKIN TAX... and the above quote from Donkey illustrates what the "masses" believe to be true... Get the fuckers out that are hoarding the money, because they spend most of it overseas because there's fuck all to buy here...

Sunshine - Im taking numbers far bigger than $50k/

Tank

17th May 2010, 10:43

.. Most of these rich folk don't need tax cuts BECAUSE THEY DON'T PAY ANY FUCKIN TAX....

Curious exactly what you refer to as Rich?

50k as mentioned above? 100k? 500k?

mashman

17th May 2010, 10:47

Sunshine - Im taking numbers far bigger than $50k/

Thanks for that Mr Moonlight :shifty: - Aren't we all? But that's not the point. Others are which kinda shows who this budget is targeteed towards... but hey...

Curious exactly what you refer to as Rich?

50k as mentioned above? 100k? 500k?

Anyone that has enough money to make it ALL tax free...

Tank

17th May 2010, 10:53

Anyone that has enough money to make it ALL tax free...

In that case - you are talking VERY VERY VERY few people - like the number that you can count on a single hand.

It counts EVERY person that earns a wage - we all pay PAYE - so even the people on 5mil pay tax (and a lot of it).

You keep banging on like every person earning over 70k doesn't pay tax (being the figure that labour called 'rich pricks') - you are very wrong.

Mully

17th May 2010, 11:04

You keep banging on like every person earning over 70k doesn't pay tax (being the figure that labour called 'rich pricks') - you are very wrong.

Fuck, I wish. That would be awesome.

T.W.R

17th May 2010, 11:05

Dear Mr English,

Im smart and clever -
Im putting my tax cut towards a nice holiday in Samoan beach resort.

That'll be good putting money into the Samoan economy when the majority of the samoan population are here leeching of our economy already :msn-wink:

mashman

17th May 2010, 11:13

In that case - you are talking VERY VERY VERY few people - like the number that you can count on a single hand.

It counts EVERY person that earns a wage - we all pay PAYE - so even the people on 5mil pay tax (and a lot of it).

You keep banging on like every person earning over 70k doesn't pay tax (being the figure that labour called 'rich pricks') - you are very wrong.

You're thinking way too short term and that's an exceptionally naive view of the finance that it takes to evade taxation. I know of a few people that pay absolute minimal tax and I mean they somehow JUST scrape under the minimal tax bracket, yet they earn over 200k (and there are lots of people that earn that kinda cash here). They have depreciating assets, businesses that constantly run at a loss, wouldn't surprise me if there's an offshore account in there somewhere too... Add that up would ya. I'd reackon you're looking at hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars that aren't going to where they should be.

Taking the longer term view... these guys, that don't pay the FULL taxes that the rest of us pay, will eventually retire and their pension, superannuation here? will be serviced by those that do pay full taxes. Similar to ACC they will get their salaries paid at whatever levels are set when they no longer work (albeit not through injury)... They earned it? NO they didn't, they dodged as much tax as they possibly could (potentially all of it) and therefore are not due their superannuation in my eyes. Add to that the FACT that the upper tax threshold is 136k per year and there's already 64K of what should be taxed income not being taxed... Why not? I pay tax on my whole salary, as do the majority of the country... yet these guys don't and still receive the full superannuation that they are "entitled" to... If i'm wrong, make mine a humble pie...

Example: A banker in the UK was dismissed for losing 24 billion pounds... yet he will retire on 671,000 pounds per year... who pays for that? those who pay taxes... and I bet he isn't one of them...

That's your kids and mine paying for this... it's utter bullshit... you're either trolling or don't give a fuck.

Smifffy

17th May 2010, 11:20

Give me the $30, keep the $30. The cheap tramp that just dropped out of highschool is still going to expect the rest of us to pay to raise her 3 fatherless children. It's her entitlement.

Most schools would be a lot better resourced if it weren't for the offspring of those that would feel tempted by an open bathroom window.

The guy that is out of work and his case worker could both be helping to provide clean, well maintained roads for us to ride our motorcycles on. Or they might join the ranks of those in our defence forces, in case they are ever needed in times of war or crisis - Yes they can even do that part-time if it suits them better. They might even like to help out at the local community garden to assist producing food for the woman up the road, bringing up kids on her own. Maybe they could help out to make sure the walk to the bus stop is safe, for those places lucky enough to actually have bus stops. Maybe they could help out around the local high school with minor tasks. Perhaps they could do some of these things without shame and with a sense of dignity. There are actually a number of people that do these things, and are appreciated.

Perhaps they could sit around with their mates drinking and x-boxing until it gets dark enough to go out and roam the streets looking for open bathroom windows, or school walls to tag, or young women walking to the bus stop. After all society and the rich wanks making 50K, and losing a third of it in PAYE, and an eighth of what's left in GST, and $50 a week in rates has let them down.

Swoop

17th May 2010, 11:24

A clear example is Kiwibank, they charge similar to market rates but you still get a shit service.
ALSO..... they parasite on Postshop floorspace, staff and counters. That will save them a pretty penny.
What it does, however, is fuck off people who want to post a fucking letter or parcel. Piss off and do your banking at a real bank.:ar15:

Smifffy

17th May 2010, 11:27

You're thinking way too short term and that's an exceptionally naive view of the finance that it takes to evade taxation. I know of a few people that pay absolute minimal tax and I mean they somehow JUST scrape under the minimal tax bracket, yet they earn over 200k (and there are lots of people that earn that kinda cash here). They have depreciating assets, businesses that constantly run at a loss, wouldn't surprise me if there's an offshore account in there somewhere too... Add that up would ya. I'd reackon you're looking at hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars that aren't going to where they should be.

Taking the longer term view... these guys, that don't pay the FULL taxes that the rest of us pay, will eventually retire and their pension, superannuation here? will be serviced by those that do pay full taxes. Similar to ACC they will get their salaries paid at whatever levels are set when they no longer work (albeit not through injury)... They earned it? NO they didn't, they dodged as much tax as they possibly could (potentially all of it) and therefore are not due their superannuation in my eyes. Add to that the FACT that the upper tax threshold is 136k per year and there's already 64K of what should be taxed income not being taxed... Why not? I pay tax on my whole salary, as do the majority of the country... yet these guys don't and still receive the full superannuation that they are "entitled" to... If i'm wrong, make mine a humble pie...

Example: A banker in the UK was dismissed for losing 24 billion pounds... yet he will retire on 671,000 pounds per year... who pays for that? those who pay taxes... and I bet he isn't one of them...

That's your kids and mine paying for this... it's utter bullshit... you're either trolling or don't give a fuck.

So then:

a. You are talking about tax dodging pricks on megabucks that are exploiting loopholes, not people working hard to try and make better than average wages and be able to retire comfortably after being told all through their high school years that there will be no pension for them when they retire. I agree - close the loopholes.

b. The banker in the UK, and his pension plan with his former employeer is relevant to the NZ tax take, and government funded pension plan exactly how?

Mully

17th May 2010, 11:35

ALSO..... they parasite on Postshop floorspace, staff and counters. That will save them a pretty penny.
What it does, however, is fuck off people who want to post a fucking letter or parcel. Piss off and do your banking at a real bank.

Oh shit. Someone's started Swoop off about Kiwibank again.

p.dath

17th May 2010, 11:38

How about you make voluntary donations to the IRD to provide everything that you want?

aprilia_RS250

17th May 2010, 11:40

mashman

17th May 2010, 11:41

So then:

a. You are talking about tax dodging pricks on megabucks that are exploiting loopholes, not people working hard to try and make better than average wages and be able to retire comfortably after being told all through their high school years that there will be no pension for them when they retire. I agree - close the loopholes.

b. The banker in the UK, and his pension plan with his former employeer is relevant to the NZ tax take, and government funded pension plan exactly how?

a. Pretty much yes.

b. Pensions are earnings related, not tax paid related to my limited knowledge? you have Kiwi Bankers here don't you? Bankers that will retire on potentially 1 million dollars a year...

Mully

17th May 2010, 11:42

You must know some really rich people given only 3% of NZers earn more than 200k, can you ask them to get in touch with me as I would love to know how I can I scrape of 170k of my salary and get under the min tax bracket??

There's a form. IIRC, it's called a "Rich Prick Form". Once you earn enough, they send you one and you tick the level of income tax you'd like to pay.

Quasievil

17th May 2010, 11:44

Bankers that will retire on potentially 1 million dollars a year...

wooo hoooo Im going to be a Banker then when I grow up

Mully

17th May 2010, 11:44

b. Pensions are earnings related, not tax paid related to my limited knowledge? you have Kiwi Bankers here don't you? Bankers that will retire on potentially 1 million dollars a year...

Unlikely.

They'll have a State (UK) Government Pension, much like here.

They'll most likely also have a retirement savings scheme - employer and employee contributions - as well, which will subsidise their State Pension.

Keep in mind, of course, that the returns on their pension fund are also taxable.

mashman

17th May 2010, 11:49

You must know some really rich people given only 3% of NZers earn more than 200k, can you ask them to get in touch with me as I would love to know how I can I scrape of 170k of my salary and get under the min tax bracket??

I'm not that surprised that I know a few out of 60,000 (REPORTED)... that's only NZ'ers? not people who work in NZ? If you're scraping by, I must be in poverty :)

mashman

17th May 2010, 11:59

Unlikely.

They'll have a State (UK) Government Pension, much like here.

They'll most likely also have a retirement savings scheme - employer and employee contributions - as well, which will subsidise their State Pension.

Keep in mind, of course, that the returns on their pension fund are also taxable.

Sorry, yup, my bad, skim read Smiffy's post and missed the last bit about gummint... cheers for pointing out Mully and went off ranting like a mad man as per... make mine a large humble please...

BUT, what I meant was that those taxes that they haven't put into the coffers most likely go towards their pension...

So yes the pension is taxable, but if they're good enough to hide it from the tax man for X amount of years, I doubt that'll suddenly change when they hit pension age...

aprilia_RS250

17th May 2010, 12:02

mashman

17th May 2010, 12:09

Meant wipe 170k of my 200k income (BTW I don't earn anywhere that amount though) so I fall under the min tax bracket? Surely if they have such a high income and can write off 85% I could easily do it with my weasly wage then. SO what 's the secret then??

And you ride an Aprilia :rofl: :shifty:

Dunno. I've never asked them. Always assumed it was just "bad" asset based...

mashman

17th May 2010, 12:10

wooo hoooo Im going to be a Banker then when I grow up

sooooo tempting :shifty: :)

aprilia_RS250

17th May 2010, 12:11

And you ride an Aprilia :rofl: :shifty:

Dunno. I've never asked them. Always assumed it was just "bad" asset based...

so you don't really know or understand? You reckon they were selling you porkies then?

aprilia_RS250

17th May 2010, 12:13

What's an Aprilia got to do with anything?

Swoop

17th May 2010, 12:14

Oh shit. Someone's started Swoop off about Kiwibank again.
Yeah...
Went in to re-register the bike (for the final time) the other day. The queue was back to the entrance door to the Postshop...
Bloody Kiwiwank.<_<

Mudfart

17th May 2010, 12:23

Good points, but a little naive if you think those are the alternatives.

I used to think NZ could be like Denmark - fantastic public services (hospitals and the like) but enormous taxes.

I've since come to the conclusion that NZ politicians (of any colour) are so inept, that it'll make no difference. Therefore, I might as well take the money and buy health insurance & burglar alarms to protect me and mine.

(BTW, why shouldn't "clever and hard working" people be rewarded by getting to keep more of the fruits of their labour?)
Nz could be like denmark. my ex was danish so i learned a bit about it. they pay 50.5% tax and get all education incl tertiary, all healthcare, paid for by the state, for the uninitiated.
Take me, I earn what is currently just under the average wage for NZ, and under Aucklands average wage by about $4 P/h, source NZherald.
If I and every average earner pay 33% PAYE plus 12.5% when you spend your money on anything, thats 45.5% already. By the time you add petrol tax, MV rego, ACC levies, and voluntary insurances it comes to well over 50.5%. Infact they call what I do, a JOB.
That is, Just Over Broke. They say the system we have is designed to keep people with JOBS only barely with their heads above the water, and infact promote us borrowing to always be in debt. I can only imagine that with all living costs my total household expenditure per paypacket is currently around 175% due to the amount borrowed. Its not looking good for ever getting a house, or retirement.
So fark it, Im getting a kick ass bike.

Quasievil

17th May 2010, 12:30

So you political fuckers, have ANY of you even to BOTHER looking at my new Ride thread and drool over its awesomeness...........No ya fucking havent have ya, did you forget this is a biker site (when it suits me) FFS Im cool as a mutha fucker and you aint even said so !

Mully

17th May 2010, 12:34

Yeah...
Went in to re-register the bike (for the final time) the other day. The queue was back to the entrance door to the Postshop...
Bloody Kiwiwank.<_<

There's your problem.

Do it on the interweb. They send the thing to you. The only drawback is if you've let it expire already and you have to wait for them to send you your label.

(plus, post shops don't let you pay credit card anymore, so you miss out on screwing them for the comission and your rewards points)

Swoop

17th May 2010, 12:37

Do it on the interweb.
How does one fill in an MR27 form on the interdweeb, to extend the registration period?:blip:

Brian d marge

17th May 2010, 13:02

Nz could be like denmark. my ex was danish so i learned a bit about it. they pay 50.5% tax and get all education incl tertiary, all healthcare, paid for by the state, for the uninitiated.
Take me, I earn what is currently just under the average wage for NZ, and under Aucklands average wage by about $4 P/h, source NZherald.
If I and every average earner pay 33% PAYE plus 12.5% when you spend your money on anything, thats 45.5% already. By the time you add petrol tax, MV rego, ACC levies, and voluntary insurances it comes to well over 50.5%. Infact they call what I do, a JOB.
That is, Just Over Broke. They say the system we have is designed to keep people with JOBS only barely with their heads above the water, and infact promote us borrowing to always be in debt. I can only imagine that with all living costs my total household expenditure per paypacket is currently around 175% due to the amount borrowed. Its not looking good for ever getting a house, or retirement.
So fark it, Im getting a kick ass bike.
and I think that sums it up very nicely
BTW , has or is Denmark under the watchful eye of the international Bankers?

what resources does Denmark have ?

Stephen

mashman

17th May 2010, 13:07

so you don't really know or understand? You reckon they were selling you porkies then?

I don't fully know and I don't fully understand (don't really want to on either account, for obvious reasons), mainly an uneducated guess (although my wife has had discussions with those in the know in regards to the rental loopholes, but i never listen to her :)) I'm pretty sure they weren't telling me porkies... I shall try to clarify when next we meet.

What's an Aprilia got to do with anything?

That's what i keep saying :rotf: was hoping you had the answer :)

mashman

17th May 2010, 13:10

Mully

17th May 2010, 13:10

How does one fill in an MR27 form on the interdweeb, to extend the registration period?:blip:

Oh. Well then it's your own fault for trying to deny our noble Gummint of ACC revenue. And for that, you must deal with Kiwibank customers at your Post Shop. (also, who goes into a bank these days? Madness)

Swoop

17th May 2010, 13:21

(also, who goes into a bank these days?)

Apparently Kiwiwank customers are unable to comprehend the internet.:thud:
The amount of them paying telescum bills is really quite astounding.

Mully

17th May 2010, 13:26

Apparently Kiwiwank customers are unable to comprehend the internet.:thud:
The amount of them paying telescum bills is really quite astounding.

Far be it from me to suggest that their phone is about to get cut-off and they need a Post office receipt rather than internet banking delays to avoid termination.

Plus, cash deals are harder to funnel through a bank.

eelracing

17th May 2010, 13:27

I want to see more Financial Company Executive jobs in NZ coz those cunts have got it so good.Raping and screwing over middle class shmucks is easy work man.

I just wish they would take their holidays in NZ and contribute to the tourist industry here instead of overseas.

God knows Hotchin is throwing it around like it's going out of fashion.
Fuck knows why he did'nt ask good mate John for the use of his Hawaiian home free of charge ...I don't know,call these cunts enterprising?

They'll always look after their own in the end.

rainman

17th May 2010, 14:55

To live in a country that rewards clever and hard working people, not just people who own stuff.

Good post. Don't disagree with any of it, really. Interested to hear more about what you mean by the line above, in practical terms.
BTW, I'd love a tax increase - but by means of increasing my income. I'm earning such a little amount at the mo I doubt I'll need to pay tax at all. Oh, and some useful facts on NZ tax are here.
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10644470)

You spending an extra 30-40 a week is much more effective when it ends up in private business hands vs govt coffers.

A popular line, but not clear it's actually true. I have come across horrendously inefficient operations in both private and public organisations, and you need to provide more justification (not ideology) if you claim that the difference in (in)efficiency is greater than the difference contributed by the need for profit. Also, private business tends to do the easy stuff - making and shipping stuff - while public orgs do more complex things with difficult social outcomes. It's not apples with apples.

It is a myth that private business is more efficient than government, but one that Act works hard to promulgate and one that will have us all paying even more for ACC.

+1

You forgot that private companies compete for business.
...
A clear example is Kiwibank, they charge similar to market rates but you still get a shit service.

Competition only improves some markets - consumer goods, no question. Healthcare, education, security, employment... not so much.
And, I've only ever had excellent service from Kiwibank, compared to mostly good although unimaginative service from BNZ, and absolute crap service from others.

history proves to me the the government cant run a health system a education system or any system well
...
Oh and for the people on the Dole, if they cant support themselves via their own families to fucken bad Im done supporting every lazy fucker in this country

Interesting view of history. Healthcare here is far from perfect but a helluva lot better than places without a fallback state system. Cough, USA, cough. Besides, the problems in transitioning to private outweigh the benefits.

I agree you shouldn't have to support lazy fuckers, none of us should. The trick is identifying them, and differentiating between those who are lazy, those who are incapable, those who are temporarily fallen on hard times, etc. No government of any shade has done this well, and I've never seen a realistic proposal from an anti-bludger to say how to do this effectively. Got any real ideas?

if the left had its way - we would be rid of the rich pricks (we will tax 'em out of the country) - and then it will be a beautiful socialist paradise with no evil businessmen (capital bastards all of em).

Of course they forget - that only leave the 'poor' to fund the roads, hospitals, working for families etc - and so it becomes a downward spiral. Of course they forget all about that - and simply expect the government to borrow more money.

A bit of a generalisation re "the left", but moving along. You make a generally valid point, but it's not a simple as that. We certainly need more productive exporting enterprise so we can afford to run the place without falling further down the debthole, but a problem is we don't have the capability to do this today, and no-one is building it. (Plus the economic environment is hostile to this). Infrastructure is only part of the requirement - you also have to build human capital and manage the economic environment so that small business can prosper and become bigger business. The problem is that Labour doesn't see this clearly or do it well, and National/Act believes that the market will sort it out so they don't have to do anything. It won't; our current course is to tenancy in our own country, higher inequality, lower social outcomes, increased debt, and, through global wage arbitrage, lower overall wages. Ultimately leading to the same place as Greece or California, even though our spending is not as extreme as theirs - but it's not the absolute value that matters, it's the amount relative to our income.

Anyway, I've never met a person earning more than say $200k who was worth a knob of goat shit as a manager. If the very wealthy (not $70k+, actual real wealthy people) buggered off tomorrow I don't think it would be a great loss tbh. Paul Reynolds hardly delivers value to NZ commensurate with his pay, as an example. The trick is identifying the rich "pricks" and not punishing the rich "good guys", same problem for all bludgers.

Give me the $30, keep the $30. The cheap tramp that just dropped out of highschool is still going to expect the rest of us to pay to raise her 3 fatherless children. It's her entitlement.
...
The guy that is out of work and his case worker could both be helping to provide clean, well maintained roads for us to ride our motorcycles on. Or they might join the ranks of those in our defence forces, in case they are ever needed in times of war or crisis... They might even like to help out at the local community garden... Maybe they could help out around the local high school with minor tasks. Perhaps they could do some of these things without shame and with a sense of dignity.

So, how to fix the culture of entitlement, which we arguably can't afford in it's current form - without screwing over the genuinely needy?
I'd be happy to help fix the roads, or do whatever. (Might skip being in the army, it's a young man's game, that). I am already involved in a community garden (lobbying councils for more of them, in fact), help out at the school, etc. Problem is I can't pay the mortgage with dignity, the bank wants money.

So you political fuckers, have ANY of you even to BOTHER looking at my new Ride thread and drool over its awesomeness...

Yeah I did but it wasn't a cruiser so I passed on by... Only kidding, it's a nice bike and I hope you enjoy it.

I want to see more Financial Company Executive jobs in NZ coz those cunts have got it so good.Raping and screwing over middle class shmucks is easy work man....
They'll always look after their own in the end.

Yeah these Randian Supermen are a lovely lot, aren't they?

(Must write shorter comments. Sorry).

schrodingers cat

17th May 2010, 15:11

I think it would be really interesting for someone with a few clues to work out what percentage of wages workers pay directly and indirectly (Tax on fuel, GST, Rego, Tarrifs, ACC blah blah) in tax.
I'm guessing a good 85% plus

Some government policies to generate some wealth (ie manufacturing) and keep it churning in this country rather than disappearing offshore would be a good start. That would create a few more jobs.
I like that we have social security but it is soooooooo expensive paying for the unemployable

Smifffy

17th May 2010, 15:20

@Rainman, yes when I was writing my post, I did have a line there about people that already do the volunteer stuff, but I must have removed it. I also think that these kinds of things are a way of differentiating between the bludgers and those in need of a hand. I think that most people that are in need of a hand are prepared to do something in return. I'm not even talking about a full 40 hours at the community garden, maybe 4 hours a week. Maybe at the SPCA or somewhere. Maybe cleaning up all the crap that gets dumped in the creeks and waterways.

Maybe the system could be tiered, so that there is some kind of incentive for those that do the bit extra.

Maybe someone will pipe up that 4 hours a week is a bit much to expect, when it's so difficult already being out of work. If you can't find a 4 hour slot once a week, I seriously doubt your commitment to finding any kind of work.

Of course a lot of these activities are the things that always thought the people sentenced to community service etc were doing, but I'm fucked if I know what they actually do.

rainman

17th May 2010, 15:53

Maybe the system could be tiered, so that there is some kind of incentive for those that do the bit extra.

The trick is the incentive actually needs to be monetary, so it just becomes a work for the dole scheme. Then you get complaints about state employment, make-work schemes, unfair competition with the free market, etc. And, of course, the tax-payer still has to pay for it (business can't do these sorts of things in a meaningful way, without adversely affecting profitability). So what's the actual difference between paying people to do fairly useless stuff, and paying people for doing nowt? Maybe that the libertarians will use it as an example of government inefficiency...

Pretty hard to do, this social welfare stuff. maybe that's why no-one gets it right!

spajohn

17th May 2010, 16:10

Modern government is surprisingly efficient and well run...

That doesn't describe any of the government departments I've worked with in Wellington. One in particular sent 6, I repeat 6, contractors to watch 1 of our staff be instructed on how to answer an 0800 line for them. Naturally I can't name names, but quite frankly the government department bloat is unacceptable and go National with axing them!

Bald Eagle

17th May 2010, 16:12

Of course a lot of these activities are the things that always thought the people sentenced to community service etc were doing, but I'm fucked if I know what they actually do.

Eat sandwichs and learn from their peers how not to get caught next time. :lol:

Quasievil

17th May 2010, 16:28

I agree you shouldn't have to support lazy fuckers, none of us should. The trick is identifying them, and differentiating between those who are lazy, those who are incapable, those who are temporarily fallen on hard times, etc. No government of any shade has done this well, and I've never seen a realistic proposal from an anti-bludger to say how to do this effectively. Got any real ideas?

Yup, sort ya shit out or A wall and and big fucking gun opposite it

yeah kinda in that mood today........never take me to seriously :innocent:

rainman

17th May 2010, 16:39

Yup, sort ya shit out or A wall and and big fucking gun opposite it

yeah kinda in that mood today........never take me to seriously :innocent:

I never do... :shifty:

...but if you ever do have any real ideas feel free to post 'em.

I see the Greens have weighed in with some of their ideas. PDF here (http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/Mind_the_Gap_2010.pdf). I haven't fully read it yet but I assume it will be despised here because of where it comes from. And maybe because it's funded from CGT on investment properties.

shrub

17th May 2010, 17:52

That doesn't describe any of the government departments I've worked with in Wellington. One in particular sent 6, I repeat 6, contractors to watch 1 of our staff be instructed on how to answer an 0800 line for them. Naturally I can't name names, but quite frankly the government department bloat is unacceptable and go National with axing them!

I'm sure there are many cases like that, but I know of several government employees who work phenonominally hard and do an excellent job. Axing infrastructure is always a great way to bring overheads down in both the private and public the only problem is that in almost every recorded instance over the last 20 years or so it has ended up with serioulsly damaging the business unit concerned. Kind of like drilling your swingarm to remove unsprung weight.

Robert Taylor

17th May 2010, 18:42

As a clever and hard working person, I'm more interested in finding new ways to earn more and having the infrastructure that rewards entrepreneurialism and creativity than to get a few cents an hour extra in tax (that will go straight away in GST).

Heavy taxes are in fact a disincentive because they penalise people for hard work. Although I find his choice of words a bit ''colourful'' Im with Headbanger

AllanB

17th May 2010, 18:49

To ride my motorcycle on clean, well maintained roads.

Canterbury roads!!!!!
I swear they have a policy that involves identifying the most popular roads with motorcyclists, fixing them to a acceptable standard, then within a month sending a road gang out to dig a big fucking hole mid corner and filling it with either too little or too much seal. Yeah - that will slow the bikes down.

shrub

17th May 2010, 19:21

Heavy taxes are in fact a disincentive because they penalise people for hard work. Although I find his choice of words a bit ''colourful'' Im with Headbanger

But the thing is, we don't have heavy taxes - we used to (back when we led the OECD), but research shows Kiwis pay less in tax than almost any other country in the OECD. The PR firms hired by the political parties tell us we're paying too much tax, so we all agree - have you ever read 1984 or Animal Farm - a chilling portrayal of the world we are living in.

I'm a rare animal - cynical about both National and Labour, but then I am fairly well informed politically and have been in business for over 20 years and the more I learn the less i trust either big catch-all party.

Smifffy

17th May 2010, 19:23

But the thing is, we don't have heavy taxes - we used to (back when we led the OECD), but research shows Kiwis pay less in tax than almost any other country in the OECD. The PR firms hired by the political parties tell us we're paying too much tax, so we all agree - have you ever read 1984 or Animal Farm - a chilling portrayal of the world we are living in.

I'm a rare animal - cynical about both National and Labour, but then I am fairly well informed politically and have been in business for over 20 years and the more I learn the less i trust either big catch-all party.

I agree we pay less tax than some other countries, but I think that we also get far less for the tax we do pay than these same countries.

shrub

17th May 2010, 19:36

is that I am not looking to the government to give me money, whether that's in the form of a tax cut or a benefit payment because I actually have enough money, and if I wanted or needed more I'd go out and make it myself. I wouldn't refuse to improve my skills, build my business or work harder unless I got a tax cut first - I'd get off my arse and make the changes. Then I wouldn't need a tax cut.

And what I want the government to do is provide a civil society where people are valued ahead of profit (typically for overseas companies). I want the government to think beyond the next election, and who aren't going to sell everything they can.

And as a businessman I want an environment that supports small businesses to grow and succeed and not an environment that purely supports globalisation. I don't want to set up a factory in China to make things, I want to make them here. I don't want the entire banking system to be foreign owned, so when more money is to made lending money to Asian businesses than Kiwi businesses, I get turned down. I have some ideas that I'd like to develop - how about providing me with support to develop them?

Hitcher

17th May 2010, 19:39

Dear Mr English

I'd really appreciate a tax cut. Over the past couple of years increasing Government levies and taxes combined with no salary increases and rising costs of living have significantly eroded my earning power and that of tens of thousands of other hard-working New Zealanders. A tax cut is one way of offsetting those ravages.

While I understand your logic about increasing GST, I really think that you should be looking at a flat tax rate rather than making token adjustments to various income tax rates. I think it is unfair that people are discriminated against based on how much they earn. People who earn more also spend more (well, of their own money anyway) and GST is a way of the Government capitalising on that. Stepped tax regimes really hurt people at the cusp of those, particularly if they are entitled to income assistance (like Working For Families) which they can lose by earning a few more dollars a year.

There's a whole bunch of stuff I'd like the Goverment to provide for needy people and I'd also like to see the Air Force have some proper planes. But I appreciate that times are tough and we've been living beyond our means for many years, thanks to fiscal imprudence from a sequence of left-leaning Governments. I commend you to pay off the country's VISA card dept and refinance the mortgage before you think of borrowing more than we can afford to service the repayments on.

I also wish that some of this country's voters would learn that we can only truly become a first-world country when we're powered by a robust economy based on rewarding endeavour and hard work rather than a first-world economy based on borrowing more than we, or our grandchildren, can afford.

All the very best for your second Budget on the 20th of May.

Cheers -- Hitcher

MisterD

17th May 2010, 19:39

shrub

17th May 2010, 19:40

I agree we pay less tax than some other countries, but I think that we also get far less for the tax we do pay than these same countries.

because since the 1980s we have been operating on the paradigm of cutting services to balance the books, and now we have a stripped infrastructure that delivers very little. Labour tried to rebuild infrastructure, but they got derailed and ended up doing a half arsed job which resulted in more bureaucracy and not much more services. Now we have an equally inept pack of idiots who will strip things back to nothing again without any thought to the long term outcomes of their actions.

MisterD

17th May 2010, 19:43

is that I am not looking to the government to give me money, whether that's in the form of a tax cut

If I can just stop you there. A tax cut is not the Government giving you money FFS, it's the Government taking less of YOUR money.

Smifffy

17th May 2010, 19:45

freedom-wedge

17th May 2010, 21:08

freedom-wedge

17th May 2010, 21:17

shrub

17th May 2010, 21:20

If I can just stop you there. A tax cut is not the Government giving you money FFS, it's the Government taking less of YOUR money.

I see living in a civil society something that I am willing to pay for, and if we live in a world where we can't afford to buy the essentials of a decent civil society I see no reason to pay less. But then I have always believed that life is about paying your way and taking responsibility for your own results. I want to live in a world that is better than the one we live in now, and I'm happy to contribute to that as opposed to just moaning about it.

cowpoos

17th May 2010, 21:25

Fuckers are welcome to cut back on the gravy trains and get their thieving fucking hands off my fucking money.

after the excesses of the lLabour...fucking drove me nuts with the bullshit they spent money on...and allowing ACC to become property speculaters??? they lost $$$$ out there massively...think about that when you ACC leveies go up soon for your rego

Headbanger

17th May 2010, 21:29

after the excesses of the lLabour...fucking drove me nuts with the bullshit they spent money on...and allowing ACC to become property speculaters??? they lost $$$$ out there massively...think about that when you ACC leveies go up soon for your rego

ACC investments made a (very healthy) profit.

freedom-wedge

17th May 2010, 21:32

You're thinking way too short term and that's an exceptionally naive view of the finance that it takes to evade taxation. I know of a few people that pay absolute minimal tax and I mean they somehow JUST scrape under the minimal tax bracket, yet they earn over 200k (and there are lots of people that earn that kinda cash here). They have depreciating assets, businesses that constantly run at a loss, wouldn't surprise me if there's an offshore account in there somewhere too... Add that up would ya. I'd reackon you're looking at hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars that aren't going to where they should be.

Taking the longer term view... these guys, that don't pay the FULL taxes that the rest of us pay, will eventually retire and their pension, superannuation here? will be serviced by those that do pay full taxes. Similar to ACC they will get their salaries paid at whatever levels are set when they no longer work (albeit not through injury)... They earned it? NO they didn't, they dodged as much tax as they possibly could (potentially all of it) and therefore are not due their superannuation in my eyes. Add to that the FACT that the upper tax threshold is 136k per year and there's already 64K of what should be taxed income not being taxed... Why not? I pay tax on my whole salary, as do the majority of the country... yet these guys don't and still receive the full superannuation that they are "entitled" to... If i'm wrong, make mine a humble pie...

Example: A banker in the UK was dismissed for losing 24 billion pounds... yet he will retire on 671,000 pounds per year... who pays for that? those who pay taxes... and I bet he isn't one of them...

That's your kids and mine paying for this... it's utter bullshit... you're either trolling or don't give a fuck.

The rich exist at the top, tax advantage is at this level, they can afford the best advice in order to pretect what they earn, the system is also set up to aid and abet this situation, it what the politicos rely on and live on and breath on, yeah I,m with the mash man on this one, buget day - yawn, tax the smokers and drinkers and and by fuck tax those motorcycle riders some more becucase someons got to pay for what Im giving back, FFS.

mashman

17th May 2010, 21:33

So, a couple of points in response:

1) These people aren't going to see much out of the tax cut then are they? But they presumably spend a fair bit of money, they're not just stuffing mattresses with fivers, so the GST increase will hit them harder...

2) It costs money on lawyers and accountants to structure your affairs to avoid (I'll use the nice term for the legal activity) tax. It's quite possible to lower tax rates and increase tax take as it becomes easier just to pay up. I believe that's what happened under Reagan in the US.

1) they generally don't need to spend any more than you or me. It's the luxury items that they get stung on... most of which they already have. So i'd argue that your statement is 50% correct? Also, they are accruing interest and living "frugally" they can quite happily live off of it and save the rest... guess it all depends on what the money is used for... but not all spend it, well not here anyway.

2) I totally agree, but the setup fees are generally a one off and are an affordable trade for the gains made... but again, that's an uneducated guess... otherwise why would these "services" be available for tax restructuring :shifty:

mashman

17th May 2010, 21:37

The rich exist at the top, tax advantage is at this level, they can afford the best advice in order to pretect what they earn, the system is also set up to aid and abet this situation, it what the politicos rely on and live on and breath on, yeah I,m with the mash man on this one, buget day - yawn, tax the smokers and drinkers and and by fuck tax those motorcycle riders some more becucase someons got to pay for what Im giving back, FFS.

but we need the rich people apparantly... the prime minister of the UK said so and so does the prime minister of NZ... they can't noth be wrong... they bring so much to the economy... who's holding the calculator again?

mashman

17th May 2010, 21:38

cowpoos

17th May 2010, 21:38

Dear Mr. English, I know you're planning to give me a tax cut in the budget, but I don't really want it and certainly don't need it. Instead of an extra $30 - $40 a week in my pocket, which I'll only spend, what I want is:

To know that if I get sick or injured that there is a well equipped hospital waiting for me, and that I won't find a massive bill when I leave

To know that my kids can go to a well resourced school with great teachers who are well trained and well rewarded.

To know that if I call the cops they'll treat my problem as a priority, and won't be parked on the side of the road taking photos of people doing 112 kmh.

To know my daughter can walk to the bus stop safely.

To know that when the guy up the road is out of work that he is given enough money to enable him to live in dignity, and maybe not feel tempted by my open bathroom window. And I want to know that his case worker is actually on his case, not snowed under and under resourced.

To know that the woman up the road bringing up her kids on her own is able to feed and clothe them in a way that doesn't bring shame on her and on them.

To know that if the country ever needs them, whether in war or crisis, that our service personelle are well equipped and trained for the task ahead of them.

To ride my motorcycle on clean, well maintained roads.

To live in a country that rewards clever and hard working people, not just people who own stuff.

Mr. English, if I want an extra few dollars, I'll go and earn it because I have control over that, so don't try and make me happy by giving me something I can get for myself. Give me the things I need that I can't get for myself and I might just ask you to come back in 2011.

Yours, a voter.

Welcome to the website Phill Goff

By the way...no one actually knows who you are....and only thick people vote for you...so good luck with your campaign building up to the next election...you'll be forgotten shortly.

[and for the record...the core of your voters are smarter than you think...they don't fall for your crap!]

As a clever and hard working person, I'm more interested in finding new ways to earn more and having the infrastructure that rewards entrepreneurialism and creativity than to get a few cents an hour extra in tax (that will go straight away in GST).

You ain't clever Mr Goff...Entrepreneurs are after money...give them more they will want more...and create jobs,bussenisses along the way...take thier money off them...they go overseas...along with all the doctors and teachers and other professionals that are in the higher tax brackets that piss of overseas that we actually need??? Did you think about that Phill?? hmm?? No??? ohhh.....thats because you ain't that clever!

It is a myth that private business is more efficient than government, but one that Act works hard to promulgate and one that will have us all paying even more for ACC. Modern government is surprisingly efficient and well run, and is pretty well a match for the private sector. The big difference is that in government there is no requirement to produce a profit for the owners (increasingly offshore entities) because we are the owners therefore state supplied goods and services can be offered at a lower cost than the private sector.

Labour kept New Zealanders poor..Mr Goff...by having over inflated systems and bureaucratic bull crap...managers in public service are the highest payed...and are most definatly no more efficient...just saying so doesn't make you right... check your facts Phill.

"This would give someone on $50,000 an extra $20 a week in the hand but when the GST rise is included, it reduces to $6."

ooooo i can hear the till bells ringin now... Most of these rich folk don't need tax cuts BECAUSE THEY DON'T PAY ANY FUCKIN TAX... and the above quote from Donkey illustrates what the "masses" believe to be true... Get the fuckers out that are hoarding the money, because they spend most of it overseas because there's fuck all to buy here...

errrrr.....your way way way to dumb to be a labour supporter....Mcgilicuty serious party??? hmm?

freedom-wedge

17th May 2010, 21:52

mashman

17th May 2010, 21:53

errrrr.....your way way way to dumb to be a labour supporter....Mcgilicuty serious party??? hmm?

thank god for that, i thought there was something wrong with me for a moment... I see Mr Magoo is still alive and kicking :)

cowpoos

17th May 2010, 21:53

Anyone that has enough money to make it ALL tax free...

Like a person earning 45k....3 children....tax free because of working for families???

shrub

17th May 2010, 21:55

ACC investments made a (very healthy) profit.

Shhhh.... don't say that, you'll undo all the good work of the national party spin doctors.

shrub

17th May 2010, 22:00

Me too. But i'd rather the society "cost" nothing more than a Thank You and a smile.

Amen brother, sadly the only way I have found where I can get the stuff I want is to pay for it with either work or cash earned working. I'd love it if the Government didn't need to tax me and I still had all the benefits of living in an advanced civil society, but that's kind of like perpetual motion, time travel and the return of Elvis - be lovely if they were true, but the laws of physics and all that...

cowpoos

17th May 2010, 22:02

. you're either trolling or don't give a fuck.

Don't be do hipocritical matie...you hav a very slim veiw of what are facts and what your mate told you over a joint over the back fence!!

People who earn more, pay more tax...It maybe hard for someone who's not very intelectual to understand...but its true....even with out our progressive taxation system that gets higher as you earn more. if it were a flat tax rate say 20%...and you earn 50k...You pay 10k pre year....Mr money bags earns 100k...he pays 20k a year...and yes...he does still have more money than you...why?? because he is most likey a better more productive person, smarter,probally better looking and will have a much larger penis....but besides all that...is it not clear that he pays more???

shrub

17th May 2010, 22:04

[QUOTE=cowpoos;1129755195] Labour kept New Zealanders poor..Mr Goff...by having over inflated systems and bureaucratic bull crap...managers in public service are the highest payed...and are most definatly no more efficient...just saying so doesn't make you right... check your facts Phill.
QUOTE]

Nobody kept me poor (or for that matter most of the people I know). In fact most of us made a shitload of cash under Labour, but I got ahead by working hard and being smart, and that had nothing to do with tax cuts or government spending and everything to do with my attitude and abilities.

mashman

17th May 2010, 22:06

Like a person earning 45k....3 children....tax free because of working for families???

fair point...

freedom-wedge

17th May 2010, 22:12

because since the 1980s we have been operating on the paradigm of cutting services to balance the books, and now we have a stripped infrastructure that delivers very little. Labour tried to rebuild infrastructure, but they got derailed and ended up doing a half arsed job which resulted in more bureaucracy and not much more services. Now we have an equally inept pack of idiots who will strip things back to nothing again without any thought to the long term outcomes of their actions.

And this is as serious as it gets, these idiots are more skilled at the scam than the previous lot, more capable because they know that they have to reward their friends from way back who have waited long and hard for you to pay just one dollar a day for the little company that waits, sheesh we gonna pay for deals done while these fellas were trying to oust Helen and making promises with cronies to do so, and no I,m not a red, I,m just not an easy sell, Please Mr English can you save us the tax cuts and stop our old people dying on the hospital waiting lists.

cowpoos

17th May 2010, 22:17

Please Mr English can you save us the tax cuts and stop our old people dying on the hospital waiting lists.

So if health gets more money on the 20th you'll vote national??? because labour had 9 years and achived nothing in that regard!

mashman

17th May 2010, 22:21

Don't be do hipocritical matie...you hav a very slim veiw of what are facts and what your mate told you over a joint over the back fence!!

People who earn more, pay more tax...It maybe hard for someone who's not very intelectual to understand...but its true....even with out our progressive taxation system that gets higher as you earn more. if it were a flat tax rate say 20%...and you earn 50k...You pay 10k pre year....Mr money bags earns 100k...he pays 20k a year...and yes...he does still have more money than you...why?? because he is most likey a better more productive person, smarter,probally better looking and will have a much larger penis....but besides all that...is it not clear that he pays more???

the reason i don't think my leg is being pulled is because 1 of them is concerned about the changes to the LAQC eating into his "investment". but he does brew exceedingly good weed and has a very nice fence... you're right, i'm wrong, ugly, thick, unproductive and have a tiny penis that couldn't satisfy a gnat let alone a woman... luckily the postman is the opposite and gave me 4 lovely children. You're still assuming that everyone pays taxes that can afford to... I thought that tax cheats were a matter of public record? some even go to jail for it... maybe they got their facts wrong and imprisoned innocent people.

mashman

17th May 2010, 22:27

you hav a very slim veiw of what are facts and what your mate told you over a joint over the back fence!!

I read back and see what i think youre referring to... i made a big faux... the limit i was talking about was 106,000 and it was the earners levy... humble pie etc... thanks for the seed of doubt...

cowpoos

17th May 2010, 22:29

the reason i don't think my leg is being pulled is because 1 of them is concerned about the changes to the LAQC eating into his "investment". but he does brew exceedingly good weed and has a very nice fence... you're right, i'm wrong, ugly, thick, unproductive and have a tiny penis that couldn't satisfy a gnat let alone a woman... luckily the postman is the opposite and gave me 4 lovely children. You're still assuming that everyone pays taxes that can afford to... I thought that tax cheats were a matter of public record? some even go to jail for it... maybe they got their facts wrong and imprisoned innocent people.

I'll agree that LAQC's are a issuse....but there won't be any other real examples when you can explain that someone won't pay thier way in tax, and then some, on a high income.
I believe in a flat tax rate for workers,companys,trusts,whoever...it is the only way to make the work force more productive.

Smifffy

17th May 2010, 22:31

the reason i don't think my leg is being pulled is because 1 of them is concerned about the changes to the LAQC eating into his "investment". but he does brew exceedingly good weed and has a very nice fence... you're right, i'm wrong, ugly, thick, unproductive and have a tiny penis that couldn't satisfy a gnat let alone a woman... luckily the postman is the opposite and gave me 4 lovely children. You're still assuming that everyone pays taxes that can afford to... I thought that tax cheats were a matter of public record? some even go to jail for it... maybe they got their facts wrong and imprisoned innocent people.

Oh, so you really mean that you want it to be illegal to evade tax, so that those people who evaded tax and went to jail, would end up getting sent to jail?

These are the tax evaders you are so concerned about getting away with the Health dept's millions?

mashman

17th May 2010, 22:38

I'll agree that LAQC's are a issuse....but there won't be any other real examples when you can explain that someone won't pay thier way in tax and then some on a high income.
I believe in a flat tax rate for workers,companys,trusts,whoever...it is the only way to make the work force more productive.

Other than writing off assets against a company that are for personal use... phones, cars, wages for the wife helping out (potentially legitimate write-offs, then again I guess it's how you use the system... as you point out, i ain't no expert) etc... I'm sure there are many more creative ways of doing it... I dunno about making them more productive, it may offer a level of "equity", but i think making them more productive would be a bit of a stretch... especially as they can dothe same job, for the same money and they just get less taken off them... if the figures support the usage of flat rate not diminishing the levels of government "service", then yeah, it's got to be 1 way forwards...

mashman

17th May 2010, 22:41

Oh, so you really mean that you want it to be illegal to evade tax, so that those people who evaded tax and went to jail, would end up getting sent to jail?

These are the tax evaders you are so concerned about getting away with the Health dept's millions?

I thought it was illegal to evade tax? any dept millions... not necessarily going to jail, would just rather they just paid the taxes and kept on doing it to ease the burden on everyone else...

cowpoos

17th May 2010, 22:44

but i think making them more productive would be a bit of a stretch... .

Motivated people with a poor skill set, get killed by secondary tax....when they are trying to get ahead.

mashman

17th May 2010, 22:50

Motivated people with a poor skill set, get killed by secondary tax....when they are trying to get ahead.

Tis a bloody shame... guess the "smart" people work for cash in hand?

cowpoos

17th May 2010, 22:52

Tis a bloody shame... guess the "smart" people work for cash in hand?

Their skills set is usually worth more...

mashman

17th May 2010, 23:23

Their skills set is usually worth more...

meh, perhaps... maybe that's the poor, misconceived, mindset of the "employer"... svings and roondabouts i guess...

rainman

18th May 2010, 00:18

why?? because he is most likey a better more productive person, smarter,probally better looking and will have a much larger penis....

On the basis of that analysis, Paul Reynolds' dick must stretch from his top floor office to halfway down the building at Hereford St...
Why do you say a flat tax is the "only way to make the workforce more productive"?

scott411

18th May 2010, 07:52

meh, perhaps... maybe that's the poor, misconceived, mindset of the "employer"... svings and roondabouts i guess...

let me guess you have never been one,

i think paying 33% top rate is a good thing, i do not see why because you earn more you should pay a greater percentage of the tax take, i don;t think GST should ride either, but unfortuanlty we have a big deficit at the moment, and not many people will support cutting of key services like welfare, health or education to get the books to balance, luckerly most of the western world is worse off than we are in this,
i also think the secondry tax should be capped at 33% as well,

Deano

18th May 2010, 07:58

I'll agree that LAQC's are a issuse....but there won't be any other real examples when you can explain that someone won't pay thier way in tax, and then some, on a high income.
I believe in a flat tax rate for workers,companys,trusts,whoever...it is the only way to make the work force more productive.

I don't know what an LAQC is but I know of a family business that pays the wife $20k of her husbands salary to reduce his tax burden.
Oh, she works for it though - about an hour a week doing paperwork. They will be millionaires like the husbands father and his father before him that started the business.

I'm not begrudging them for being successful, but the wife's salary is just a legal rort.

freedom-wedge

18th May 2010, 08:04

So if health gets more money on the 20th you'll vote national??? because labour had 9 years and achived nothing in that regard!

No I dont think I will, but your right about labour

Toaster

18th May 2010, 08:06

Support for a national oil company and drilling offshore like the big multinationals are now doing in the GSB could and would eventually turn us into another Norway if we did it well (no pun intended). We could have a transformed economy if we do it right and push for it.

As for tax cuts.... from income tax to GST and little help in the middle with price rises sucking it up anyway.... woop dee do.

MisterD

18th May 2010, 08:43

I see living in a civil society something that I am willing to pay for, and if we live in a world where we can't afford to buy the essentials of a decent civil society I see no reason to pay less. But then I have always believed that life is about paying your way and taking responsibility for your own results. I want to live in a world that is better than the one we live in now, and I'm happy to contribute to that as opposed to just moaning about it.

I see we're mostly in agreement then - I just happen to believe that big-government tax, borrow and spend type policy undermines peoples' ability to take responsibility...

The view from the likes of the Stranded that the "rich" (anyone who earns more than 70K!) have a responsibility to society to pay high taxes, whereas there appears to be no expectation of any responsibility to society from those who are net recipients.

scott411

18th May 2010, 08:48

I don't know what an LAQC is but I know of a family business that pays the wife $20k of her husbands salary to reduce his tax burden.
Oh, she works for it though - about an hour a week doing paperwork. They will be millionaires like the husbands father and his father before him that started the business.

I'm not begrudging them for being successful, but the wife's salary is just a legal rort.

but then benefits are reduced as well, if the husband has an accident the payoput will be less the 20k per annum as well,

this is where a flat tax is better, under this system the wifes earnings would be taxed at the same rate anyway,

then there is the whole income splitting debate as well, which would make it easier for wage earners to do the same thing as business owners,

Swoop

18th May 2010, 09:03

Some government policies to generate some wealth (ie manufacturing) and keep it churning in this country rather than disappearing offshore would be a good start. That would create a few more jobs.
The starting point would have to be the trains built in Dunedin. Fairly close in pricing, but instead of being made in China *cringe* they have an opportunity to employ staff and create a local base for future maintenance.

That doesn't describe any of the government departments I've worked with in Wellington. One in particular sent 6, I repeat 6, contractors to watch 1 of our staff be instructed on how to answer an 0800 line for them. Naturally I can't name names, but quite frankly the government department bloat is unacceptable and go National with axing them!
No! We have been informed in this thread, that gubbinment departments are well run (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/123522-Dear-Mr-English-I-don-t-want-a-tax-cut?p=1129754139#post1129754139)and can be competitive with private industry...:thud:
Nine years of public servants bloating out their empires' really needs to be slashed back.

shrub

18th May 2010, 09:39

I see we're mostly in agreement then - I just happen to believe that big-government tax, borrow and spend type policy undermines peoples' ability to take responsibility...

The view from the likes of the Stranded that the "rich" (anyone who earns more than 70K!) have a responsibility to society to pay high taxes, whereas there appears to be no expectation of any responsibility to society from those who are net recipients.

I also believe that there is no such thing as equality. I have 3 university degrees, am white, male and tall; therefore i can pretty well do and have whatever I want, but what about the people who don't have the intellect to gain the education I have? Or who aren't white and male (and yes, that makes a statistically provable difference)? I was dealt a good hand in life, and I'm quite happy to pay a bit more in taxes to ensure that the society I live in is a good one, and don't see why I can't contribute more to the common good than the guy who will never earn much more than the minimum wage.

I am probably something of an enigma in the modern "me, me, me" world in that one of the metrics I use to measure my wealth is in the quality of the society i live in. In other words, the worse off people around me are, then the less successful I believe I am, but sadly we have been trained to believe in the "every man for himself" dogma that I am certain will ultimately cripple our civilsation.

And what is "big government"? It's a catchphrase of the new right, but like "politial correctness" nobody seems to really know what it means, or what is a viable alternative to any of the tentative definitions I see being used.

Pixie

18th May 2010, 09:46

Example: A banker in the UK was dismissed for losing 24 billion pounds... yet he will retire on 671,000 pounds per year... who pays for that? those who pay taxes... and I bet he isn't one of them...

That's your kids and mine paying for this... it's utter bullshit... you're either trolling or don't give a fuck.
If the banker is in England why are we paying his pension?
I doubt the English tax payer provides 671,000 pound pensions either,for that matter

shrub

18th May 2010, 09:46

The starting point would have to be the trains built in Dunedin. Fairly close in pricing, but instead of being made in China *cringe* they have an opportunity to employ staff and create a local base for future maintenance.

But if we can save a few million dollars by getting them made in China, that is what must be done. Remember, we live in a world run by accountants where cost is more important than value, and building trains here only has long term benefits and nobody is interested in long term these days.

Swoop

18th May 2010, 09:52

But if we can save a few million dollars by getting them made in China, that is what must be done. ... building trains here only has long term benefits and nobody is interested in long term these days.
That makes sense. Getting shit made in china guarantees that it will not last for very long.

shrub

18th May 2010, 09:56

That makes sense. Getting shit made in china guarantees that it will not last for very long.

And we luffs the Chinese long time. We will buy anything they want us to buy and they can in turn buy our stuff at whatever price they want - the good Ms Clark made sure of that.

Tank

18th May 2010, 10:05

but by means of increasing my income. I'm earning such a little amount at the mo I doubt I'll need to pay tax at all.

.......

Anyway, I've never met a person earning more than say $200k who was worth a knob of goat shit as a manager.

Something that never ceases to amaze me is that the people who earn "the least" (Not specifically Rainman - there are plenty of others on here) know so much about executive management that they actually understand the requirements / deliverables etc of the job to an extent that they can make a full and informed critique of the person and the role - despite them obviously not being in a position to hold a role of that caliber themselves.

FFS - thats like me sitting here pointing out where Rossi is getting in wrong.

Tank

18th May 2010, 10:07

but we need the rich people apparantly... the prime minister of the UK said so and so does the prime minister of NZ... they can't noth be wrong... they bring so much to the economy... who's holding the calculator again?

Yeah - the country would be so much better off with 100% of people on benefit - what could possibly be wrong with that picture.

Tank

18th May 2010, 10:11

10% of the population pay 76% of Tax. Despite the wingers saying all rich pricks dont pay tax - simply doesn't add up does it? If that was the case - NZ would have to survive on the 24% of tax that the 90% of the country provides.

The simple fact is that they are jealous and want more given to them - they dont actually believe that its fair that the 10% ONLY pay 76% - they want people to pay more - have it handed to them on a plate so they dont have to make the effort and sacrifice.

scott411

18th May 2010, 10:40

I also believe that there is no such thing as equality. I have 3 university degrees, am white, male and tall; therefore i can pretty well do and have whatever I want, but what about the people who don't have the intellect to gain the education I have? Or who aren't white and male (and yes, that makes a statistically provable difference)? I was dealt a good hand in life, and I'm quite happy to pay a bit more in taxes to ensure that the society I live in is a good one, and don't see why I can't contribute more to the common good than the guy who will never earn much more than the minimum wage.

I am probably something of an enigma in the modern "me, me, me" world in that one of the metrics I use to measure my wealth is in the quality of the society i live in. In other words, the worse off people around me are, then the less successful I believe I am, but sadly we have been trained to believe in the "every man for himself" dogma that I am certain will ultimately cripple our civilsation.

And what is "big government"? It's a catchphrase of the new right, but like "politial correctness" nobody seems to really know what it means, or what is a viable alternative to any of the tentative definitions I see being used.

the thing is you do contribute more, of every extra dollar you earn and spend you pay a percentage, but the defination of more and enough is different among people, if you feel that you want to give more there are plenty of organisations that help lower income or disadvantaged people, and as a per dollar return will help more than the goverment taxing you more,

aprilia_RS250

18th May 2010, 11:25

If the banker is in England why are we paying his pension?
I doubt the English tax payer provides 671,000 pound pensions either,for that matter

i think you'll find there was no banker that lost 24b pounds. The storry would be huge news and there would be widespread panic.

Given Wikipedia is always correct you'll find the top place goes to Kerviel at SCG for a loss of EUR 5b on futures trading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trading_losses

Everyone, also remember to get your tax refunds this year!!!

mashman

18th May 2010, 12:19

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7911722.stm

http://philtaylor.org.uk/?p=1948

Delerium

18th May 2010, 12:42

Actually i think the train thing was more of a time issue, getting them built in nz would take too long

mashman

18th May 2010, 13:03

If the banker is in England why are we paying his pension?
I doubt the English tax payer provides 671,000 pound pensions either,for that matter

Sorry, was a bad bad day yesterday (today ain't much better), but the links posted above kinda explain my fucked up rant... with English banks being owned by government it means the tax paying public are essentially funding the pension. My big bad... (but true, it has nothing to do with NZ... other than they have a publicly owned bank too...)

mashman

18th May 2010, 13:04

let me guess you have never been one

and that's has got what to do with what? If you're thinking envy wwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa

mashman

18th May 2010, 13:05

Yeah - the country would be so much better off with 100% of people on benefit - what could possibly be wrong with that picture.

ok, so trolling it is :shifty:

SPman

18th May 2010, 13:18

MisterD

18th May 2010, 13:25

rainman

18th May 2010, 13:57

Something that never ceases to amaze me is that the people who earn "the least" (Not specifically Rainman - there are plenty of others on here) know so much about executive management that they actually understand the requirements / deliverables etc of the job to an extent that they can make a full and informed critique of the person and the role - despite them obviously not being in a position to hold a role of that caliber themselves.

Only half right: yes, many who criticise senior management haven't got a clear idea of what's involved. Doesn't mean they're wrong, though. There was even a study a while back that showed NZ and Aussie managers to be not very good - I shall have to dig that out. Personally (and I realise you excluded me above), over 20 years I've been in senior enough roles to understand what's required in exec roles, and get a clear whiff of the arseholes sitting in the exec chairs, so to speak. Enough to know I why I don't ever want to go there myself - I simply cannot muster the right blend of incompetence and lack of ethics. Number of worthwhile execs I've encountered? Three, maybe. Number in NZ? One, of the old guard, now dead.

Yeah - the country would be so much better off with 100% of people on benefit - what could possibly be wrong with that picture.

You sure that's the only alternative? Reductio ad absurdum does not help dialogue.

10% of the population pay 76% of Tax. Despite the wingers saying all rich pricks dont pay tax - simply doesn't add up does it? If that was the case - NZ would have to survive on the 24% of tax that the 90% of the country provides.

The simple fact is that they are jealous and want more given to them - they dont actually believe that its fair that the 10% ONLY pay 76% - they want people to pay more - have it handed to them on a plate so they dont have to make the effort and sacrifice.

Those numbers only make sense if you consider other issues of equity. Who owns what percentage of the wealth? How has that changed over time?
In NZ, inequality has been increasing steadily since Nosferatu Douglas did his thing in the 80's. I don't mind there being a reasonable degree of inequality - as many have pointed out even if you distributed out all wealth equally today, by tomorrow there would be winners and losers. C'est la humanity. But allowing this process to be unconstrained does no-one any favours in the long term. There are well documented adverse social effects of high inequality. The kinds of things that people here bleat about, typically.

It also isn't true that those earning less are lazy and unwilling - some are just unlucky, some are discriminated against, some are less than capable for various reasons, some are more powerful. (And yes, some are lazy). Otherwise the "winners and losers" scenario above would not work, if you think about it. In fact, the lazy and unwilling hypothesis does not stand up to the most casual scrutiny; if the rich have been getting richer for a sustained period (true), and there are clear economic and other disincentives to laziness (true), why would it doggedly continue? If your conclusion is that people are unrehabilitably lazy then the conventional argument is screwed - you are stuck with them regardless of what you do (dark fascist options excluded). Either way, what has been done has not worked and it is time to try something different.

The only sound conclusion I see is that:
1) yes there are lazy bastards who need an incentive to get productive - the debate then becomes whether carrot or stick is better, or both
2) yes there are people who lack capability, and these should be supported and developed to be more capable, where the incapacity is not permanent
3) yes extra effort should get extra reward, but to a point; and the effort must be actually productive. (Tell me how a megabuck bonus Goldman Sachs exec makes the world a better place and we'll both know).
4) the environment (economic and otherwise) needs to be borne in mind. Globalisation, job mobility, and wage arbitrage, particularly.

In short, tax isn't the main issue.

Tank

18th May 2010, 14:40

. Number of worthwhile execs I've encountered? Three, maybe. Number in NZ? One, of the old guard, now dead..

Given the number of New Zealand companies that have done very well, employ '000's of staff, and have made good money for their investors, and have contributed many many millions of tax dollars to NZ - I suggest that you get out and meet more execs - there are many good ones out there.

I could also point out all the 1/2 assed morons that dont give a shit, and do it poorly in lower paid jobs as well. Im guessing that the ratio is more fuckups at lower levels than at the top.

rainman

18th May 2010, 15:56

Given the number of New Zealand companies that have done very well, employ '000's of staff, and have made good money for their investors, and have contributed many many millions of tax dollars to NZ - I suggest that you get out and meet more execs - there are many good ones out there.

I could also point out all the 1/2 assed morons that dont give a shit, and do it poorly in lower paid jobs as well. Im guessing that the ratio is more fuckups at lower levels than at the top.

There are not that many large NZ companies... most workers actually work for companies of fewer than 100 employees. (There's about a 50/50 split between employees of companies >50 employees and those <50). In a global sense, challenges faced by our execs are not that huge, to be honest, although we're only a little country so that makes sense. More sense than disproportionately rewarding mediocrity, certainly.

Not sure I follow your logic about "low level fuckups". Yes, incompetence is everywhere. So why should high level fuckups be especially rewarded again?

Which execs do you particularly rate, btw?

aprilia_RS250

18th May 2010, 16:01

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7911722.stm

http://philtaylor.org.uk/?p=1948

Like I said it's not a banker, it's a global investment bank that had to write down CDO's, CMO's to reflect changing market.

"The bulk of RBS's £24.1bn losses came as made a £16.2bn write-down on poorly performing assets, mainly resulting from expensive acquisitions made during the height of the boom."

rainman

18th May 2010, 19:09

Gezza

18th May 2010, 19:18

Bloody well said shrub

Smifffy

18th May 2010, 19:54

Just watching TV3 and the story about Hotchin having a nice holiday in Hawaii while his victims suffer the consequences of his competence. I could not ask for a better example of the wonder of our Randian Supermen at work. Bet he needs a tax cut so he can stay here and make all our lives better!

WTF?

He and his ilk are the reason you guys would rather not see tax cuts, but leave the tax burden on the rest of us? You've already said he doesn't pay tax anyway. So if the rest of us don't get a cut then we just keep paying more and more while he continues to cream it and get rich off the poor shmucks who followed the advice of "financial experts", as well as the other "rich pricks" who were also heavily invested.

Do you treally think that $30 a week from each of us will make huge cuts in anything, or pay for much of what was in the OP's wishlist?

They could give $30 a week to CCS, IHC, Barnados, foodbank, pay a geezer to watch the bus stop or whatever.

The tax cuts, and the tax rates in general, affect the average worker, and normal families, the rich and privileged will always be able to afford a queen st lawyer to find loopholes for them. Comparing the rest of us to Hotchin is much as you said before: Reductio ad absurdum does not help dialogue.

oldrider

18th May 2010, 20:05

Aaah..the same old "Business is better than government" fallacy, that has been disproved, time and time again, but keeps being continually rolled out, despite all evidence to the contrary!

True!

AND there will never be any difference between the two either, as long as all the people involved behave in exactly the same way as each other!

Unfortunately they are both as "bad" as each other, in this country! :mellow:

The real argument should be about the fact that government should limit themselves to "excellence" in their "core" activities!

A contest between big government or big business should not even be a real consideration, they should both be working for the same goals, the same purpose and for the same people......."us"! FFS. :yes:

mashman

18th May 2010, 20:23

Like I said it's not a banker, it's a global investment bank that had to write down CDO's, CMO's to reflect changing market.

"The bulk of RBS's £24.1bn losses came as made a £16.2bn write-down on poorly performing assets, mainly resulting from expensive acquisitions made during the height of the boom."

semantics (he's the head of a bank, can i please call him a banker sir? :)) :shifty:... I'm not too concerned about how the loss is made up, they have their guy and he has his extortionate pension... for a living he offers people large chunks of cash to buy other institutions out... granted that's a simplified version, but essentially that's what it boils down to... fortunately the government can bail him out and save his pension at the same time... win win I guess...

Lost money is lost money... that doesn't help those that have lost it, as they pay for it with their hard earned income :shifty:

Smifffy

18th May 2010, 21:02

Lost money is lost money... that doesn't help those that have lost it, as they pay for it with their hard earned income :shifty:

Let's just hope they can catch a tax break then eh?

Tank

18th May 2010, 21:08

Lost money is lost money... that doesn't help those that have lost it, as they pay for it with their hard earned income :shifty:

A fool and their money are soon parted. People invest blindly without understanding the business they are investing in always run the risk of losing money. Anyone investing in a company that gives loans to kids with no jobs for rapidly depreciating "assets" like cars and mag wheels and they wonder where it all went wrong FFS.

People should also take accountability for their own stupid investments.

FTR - I didnt invest in finance companies - but have lost a shit load of money on other investments - and like those investors also its all my own fault.

mashman

18th May 2010, 21:49

Let's just hope they can catch a tax break then eh?

ha ha ha ha :clap:

mashman

18th May 2010, 22:25

A fool and their money are soon parted. People invest blindly without understanding the business they are investing in always run the risk of losing money. Anyone investing in a company that gives loans to kids with no jobs for rapidly depreciating "assets" like cars and mag wheels and they wonder where it all went wrong FFS.

People should also take accountability for their own stupid investments.

FTR - I didnt invest in finance companies - but have lost a shit load of money on other investments - and like those investors also its all my own fault.

Very true... although i don't really prescribe to the fool bit... sure there are some foolish investments, sure there are people out there that rip people off... but I would have thought that the majority (as usual am prepared to be wrong) of people invest on good faith and when "market forces" speak, money is gained or lost... If the market is that fragile, I would have thought that we'd all be hoarding cash under the floor boards... but in the pursuit of more money, we invest... nasty catch 22 I suppose... what's truly safe? nothing if the heads of our banks get it wrong? or is it just way of the world? win some lose some HTFU????

rainman

18th May 2010, 23:01

He and his ilk are the reason you guys would rather not see tax cuts, but leave the tax burden on the rest of us?
...
The tax cuts, and the tax rates in general, affect the average worker, and normal families, the rich and privileged will always be able to afford a queen st lawyer to find loopholes for them. Comparing the rest of us to Hotchin is much as you said before: Reductio ad absurdum does not help dialogue.

No silly, not you, I'm talking about rich people. Normal, average people earn very little in NZ. (And I tend to agree with you, the very wealthy pay less tax than they should, although others here will tell you how the top x% pay greater than x% of all taxes as proof this ain't so - when it's just proof they drank the Act koolaid and don't understand progressive taxation).

Some questions:
- NZ Median wage is...? (a pretty good indicator of "normal" if you ask me)
- Is this low, ok or high? Compared to, say Paul Reynolds, Rob Fyfe, Hotchin, etc... or even any one of the useless GMs of this that or the other that I have come across in my time, most on $300k+, none at all exceptional. How about compared to Johnny or Jane Goodperson-Hardworker, on $100k? Or more relevantly, compared to the cost of basic living - food, shelter, energy, transport, kids?
- Why is this? Serious answers only please.
- What tax policy best addresses the obvious problems that this analysis reveals?

they should both be working for the same goals, the same purpose and for the same people......."us"!

Stop being sensible, you're confusing me!

mashman

18th May 2010, 23:39

MisterD

19th May 2010, 09:06

Some questions:
- NZ Median wage is...? (a pretty good indicator of "normal" if you ask me)
- Is this low, ok or high? Compared to, say Paul Reynolds, Rob Fyfe, Hotchin, etc... or even any one of the useless GMs of this that or the other that I have come across in my time, most on $300k+, none at all exceptional. How about compared to Johnny or Jane Goodperson-Hardworker, on $100k? Or more relevantly, compared to the cost of basic living - food, shelter, energy, transport, kids?
- Why is this? Serious answers only please.
- What tax policy best addresses the obvious problems that this analysis reveals?

Stop being sensible, you're confusing me!

QES (Quarterly Employment Survey (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/work_income_and_spending/Employment/QuarterlyEmploymentSurvey_HOTPMar10qtr.aspx)) puts average NZ wage at about $50kpa
Seems about right, considering that on the whole we're a pretty low-skill economy, also "feels" about right in comparison to the UK wrt cost of living etc. It's obviously going to appear low versus a Fyfe or Reynolds.
See above - we're a pretty low skill economy, but you have to remember that the jobs market for CEOs is global which skews the comparison massively. Reckon you could give Fyfe's job to any baggage-handler at Air NZ without killing the company?

Tax policy? Ok, I'll stick my koolaid-coated neck out.
1) We need higher-skilled higher-paying jobs therefore our company tax rate needs to be attractive versus anywhere else industry could locate.
2) We need top tax rate, trusts and company rates aligned so that a) seriously high-paid types have no incentive to bugger about with structures to avoid tax and b) we're an attractive place to locate for the skilled graduates etc that otherwise go to Aussie, or London.
3) A decent tax-free allowance at the bottom to eliminate the margin effects against losing a benefit - I also like Sir Roger's idea of making that allowance higher according to the number of kids you have.
4) GST at 15% - for a whole heap of reasons, not least that it brings more from the likes of the growing number of tourists and is a little extra brake on consumption of expensive imports bought on tick.

MisterD

19th May 2010, 09:06

Tank

19th May 2010, 10:08

I have the perfect solution.

You dont want the tax cut - I do.

So - when yours arrives please simply create a direct payment to my bank account 09 87665 463732 00 and we will both be happy.

mashman

19th May 2010, 10:08

QES (Quarterly Employment Survey (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/work_income_and_spending/Employment/QuarterlyEmploymentSurvey_HOTPMar10qtr.aspx)) puts average NZ wage at about $50kpa

Sorry to nit pick but he asked for the median wage.

A company with 10 employees:

2 x 30,000 - admin staff
2 x 40,000 - sales staff
2 x 60,000 - foremen
1 x 90,000 - skilled tradesperson
2 x 100,000 - general managers
1 x 200,000 - the owner

lay them out: 30,000 30,000, 40,000 40,000, 60,000, 60,000 90,000 100,000 100,000 200,000

The company median salary: 60,000... rules for calculating the median take the middle value and that's the answer unless, as in this case, you have an even number of salaries to calculate against, then you add the middle 2 and divide by 2... ((60,000 + 60,000) / 2) = 60,000

The average company salary: 75,000... sum of all salaries divided by the number of salaries... 750,000 / 10 = 75,000

not such a subtle difference... but the figures look good for the average... which ones the closest to the truth?

MisterD

19th May 2010, 10:24

Sorry to nit pick but he asked for the median wage.

If you want to nit-pick then I think you'll find that "average" is not a synonym for "arithmetic mean". "Median" and "mode" are also methods of averaging. I don't know what methodology Statistics NZ used to come up with the their data, I just picked it as a likely-to-be-most-reliable source.

rainman

19th May 2010, 10:31

Why (serious)? - because there is a finite amount of wealth to go around... because some jobs are seen as menial and therefore don't command a salary befitting of their status.

True. As Georgie said, "It's all up to what you value". Why do we value the useless twats at the very top so much, that we misallocate our limited resources looking after them to the detriment of everyone else? 'Tis a form of inferiority complex, I think.

QES (Quarterly Employment Survey (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/work_income_and_spending/Employment/QuarterlyEmploymentSurvey_HOTPMar10qtr.aspx)) puts average NZ wage at about $50kpa

That;s the average, though - so distorted by the extremes. From LEED for 2008 (a bit slow to update, think they take 9 months), median annual earnings is $30,480. 78% of people earn less than the average, IIRC. You can't sensibly take an hourly rate and multiply it out full time - too many part-time employees, or self-employed battlers.

Seems about right, considering that on the whole we're a pretty low-skill economy, also "feels" about right in comparison to the UK wrt cost of living etc.

Dunno about the UK, but surely if we are a low-wage and low-skill economy we should be working on that as a means to improve the place, build growth, reduce social problems, etc? (Rather than just keep kicking those on the bottom of the heap). Stands to reason, dunnit? Tax cuts for the people at the very top don't help us at all - it's just a misallocation of resources.

It's obviously going to appear low versus a Fyfe or Reynolds.

That's because they are obscenely overpaid.

you have to remember that the jobs market for CEOs is global which skews the comparison massively. Reckon you could give Fyfe's job to any baggage-handler at Air NZ without killing the company?

So, a global market for CEO's get's them to be paid more, while the same global market for low-skill roles end up with them paid less? Ain't capitalism grand? Where do you think this is going, medium term? Try running Air NZ without baggage handlers. Fyfe is probably the best of a bad lot, but still can't see him being worth $3m. He's just not that exceptional.

Tax policy? Ok, I'll stick my koolaid-coated neck out.
1) We need higher-skilled higher-paying jobs therefore our company tax rate needs to be attractive versus anywhere else industry could locate.
2) We need top tax rate, trusts and company rates aligned so that a) seriously high-paid types have no incentive to bugger about with structures to avoid tax and b) we're an attractive place to locate for the skilled graduates etc that otherwise go to Aussie, or London.
3) A decent tax-free allowance at the bottom to eliminate the margin effects against losing a benefit - I also like Sir Roger's idea of making that allowance higher according to the number of kids you have.
4) GST at 15% - for a whole heap of reasons, not least that it brings more from the likes of the growing number of tourists and is a little extra brake on consumption of expensive imports bought on tick.

1. This is just a race to the bottom. Tax is not the only instrument for doing this. What about fewer FTAs, less overseas ownership, localisation incentives? If we are not initially as productive as others what would it take for us to get there? (Other than slashing wages through global wage arbitrage). Besides, if you keep cutting company tax you lose income, and either have to raise individual tax (shrieks!) or lose public services (meaning the punters pay for them anyway, tax, user pays, little difference). Where does this reasoning end?
2. Seriously high-paid types will always bugger about with trusts and structures. Align the rates all you like, this will still happen. Besides, why not align them at the top rate and not the bottom?
3. Like the tax-free allowance. Not sure about raising it with kids but that could be because it's Rog's idea and I find it hard to believe anything he proposes could be good for us. Also long term I'm less keen for greater population, but that's another kettle of fish.
4. So why not 25% GST? Slowing import consumption is good, except where a large part of your economy is retail. What are the total costs of kicking import-driven consumption in the head? How many importers and shopkeepers will go to the wall. What will their staff then do? Or is it just a game of passing the cost to the ordinary punter so we can reward our not-so-super-Supermen, again? (Don't get me wrong, I like reducing frivolous imports, just think we should build localised manufacturing first).

Tank

19th May 2010, 10:36

I have it on reliable authority that Mr English does not read Kiwibiker for advise on the economic direction of New Zealand.

So - assuming that you are going to get a tax cut whether you like it or not - what are you going to do with it?

You could buy one of those $1 a day kids if you wanted to do something good with it.

rainman

19th May 2010, 10:37

Marty over at The Standard has done a good piece on this topic: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/excusing-the-dont-be-jealous-budget/

Tank

19th May 2010, 10:56

Marty over at The Standard has done a good piece on this topic: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/excusing-the-dont-be-jealous-budget/

The standard is the largest piece of crap I have ever read. Anything they write I oppose simply in the interest of logic and good taste.

Tank

19th May 2010, 11:03

Marty over at The Standard has done a good piece on this topic: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/excusing-the-dont-be-jealous-budget/

and here is why "They pay the most tax because they have the most money The richest 1% (34,000) have an average income of $325,000; their total income is the same as the total income of the 1,345,000 lowest income taxpayers, who average $8,400 a piece."

There are around 4.2 million people in NZ. Lets assume that 3 million are of working age.

Marty believes that 44% of the income earners earn $8400 per annum
Thats 161 per week
thats $ per hour after tax. Well, well, well below the legal minimum wage. - So cannot be a accurate figure for people out there working.

So who make up this number? you got it - beneficiaries. The standard / left / labour actually think just because someone is taxed on their benefit (a silly exercise ifd there ever was one) that this is 'earning' a income.

fucken lefties. burn them all.

MisterD

19th May 2010, 11:33

Thats 161 per week
thats $ per hour after tax. Well, well, well below the legal minimum wage. - So cannot be a accurate figure for people out there working.

Lefties always do that trick when talking about wages and tax issues. It includes people who work part-time, who are for the most part either beneficiaries keeping below the "lose your benefit" threshold and second-income earners in households with the other partner earning the main income.

aprilia_RS250

19th May 2010, 11:42

Here is a few questions for you lefties.

If I'm a doctor earning 100k where I usually work 80+ hours a week. I pay at 38% plus 2% ACC. Not to mention the 10% SL tax as well.

Now why should I pay substantially more tax than you to:
Use the road?
Use the hospital?
Use public services?

I doubt I even have time to enjoy these things as much as someone who works 40h a week and yet pays a lower tax rate than I do. Why am I being penalised for studying 8 tough years through med school, accumulating a 100k student loan and now I'm doing 80h a week trying to pay that off and enjoy life a little bit. The way I see it I'm being charged more because I worked harder than most throughout my lifetime. Is that fair?

You really think it's fair that you put in less yet I put in more and still, you, have the nerve to say I should pay more tax?

T.W.R

19th May 2010, 12:04

I doubt I even have time to enjoy these things as much as someone who works 40h a week and yet pays a lower tax rate than I do. Why am I being penalised for studying 8 tough years through med school, accumulating a 100k student loan and now I'm doing 80h a week trying to pay that off and enjoy life a little bit. The way I see it I'm being charged more because I worked harder than most throughout my lifetime. Is that fair?

8 tough years of drunken hooliganism

Bren

19th May 2010, 12:05

My mother always said "dont argue about politics or religion, you always lose"

So I am not going to argue....

shrub

19th May 2010, 12:07

Here is a few questions for you lefties.

If I'm a doctor earning 100k where I usually work 80+ hours a week blah, blah, blah.....

maybe what we should have a maximum number of hours worked - 40 is a good number.

Or maybe your hypothetical doctor should just wait a few years until he's a consultant and and earning $400,000 a year for a 40 hour week.

Quit your whining, if you don't have enough money don't count on the government handing you a tax cut, go and get a better paid job, get your employer to give you a pay rise or learn to budget.

shrub

19th May 2010, 12:10

8 tough years of drunken hooliganism

I think that Aussie doctor lady of yours spent more than 8 years becoming one and her drunken hooliganism hasn't totally gone away.

Bren

19th May 2010, 12:15

Why am I being penalised for studying 8 tough years through med school, accumulating a 100k student loan and now I'm doing 80h a week trying to pay that off and enjoy life a little bit. The way I see it I'm being charged more because I worked harder than most throughout my lifetime. Is that fair?

?

Personally my opinion on life is it's not the hard work that counts, it is the colour of your tongue...Over the years I have come to realise that those who are at the top, or those who are the biggest bludgers are brown tongued ass lickers....I have been passed over a few times when seeking better jobs by people with less skills who are purely ass lickers and in bed with the bosses so to speak. Yes life is unfair on your typical hard worker...but I wont bend over and lick ass...a spade is a spade, and hard work is always satisfying at the end of a day

If you are a middle aged married white man earning an average wage then you mean jack shit to every one, but if you are a queer, or from a racial minority, or any other minority then government wants to lick up to you...

T.W.R

19th May 2010, 12:19

I think that Aussie doctor lady of yours spent more than 8 years becoming one and her drunken hooliganism hasn't totally gone away.

Ha true but she did it the proper way and paid her own way through her time as a student didn't bludge off the coffers and wasn't part of the Dunedin school of Medicine or the Otago scarfie way of life.
only one real exhibition of drunkeness so far :shutup: such a waste of Moet & Chandon :shifty:
Does a brilliant job of people who pass-out though :whistle:

shrub

19th May 2010, 12:21

Personally my opinion on life is it's not the hard work that counts, it is the colour of your tongue...Over the years I have come to realise that those who are at the top, or those who are the biggest bludgers are brown tongued ass lickers....I have been passed over a few times when seeking better jobs by people with less skills who are purely ass lickers and in bed with the bosses so to speak. Yes life is unfair on your typical hard worker...but I wont bend over and lick ass...a spade is a spade, and hard work is always satisfying at the end of a day

If you are a middle aged married white man earning an average wage then you mean jack shit to every one, but if you are a queer, or from a racial minority, or any other minority then government wants to lick up to you...

That's really sad, I'm so sorry for you. Have you ever thought of getting a sex change, becoming gay or dying your skin?

Smifffy

19th May 2010, 12:33

I'm not really bothered about whether I get a tax cut or not. I will probably put it towards paying the power or fuel bill or something. I do think I pay too much tax. I don't find tax to be a disincentive to earn more money. I don't think that the tax that i contribute is used effectively or wisely. I did well in school and tertiary study, and am one of only about five from my class who are still in NZ, with the rest overseas, even after the recession.

Maybe they should have kept the tax cut money so that they could add a couple more portaloos to the tent for the RWC, or buy another couple of lifejackets for the America's cup boys. Perhaps they may like to take another 10 HECTARE block somewhere, with all of the accompanying road works and landscaping to build another juvenile justice/rehabilitation facility that will house all of approximately 40 people. Maybe they can use it to reward the building industry with more work so that they can rework the shoddy McMansions that were built by cowboys and bought on the cheap by greedy property speculators and sold to unsuspecting baby boomers busy who have spent the last generation stripping resources faster than ever before, so that their grandchildren will inherit a desert.

Maybe they could have like a basic tax system and then with the $30 a week or even more, they could have some kind of option scheme, you tick a box or register online and select from a range of initiatives that you would like your tax to go to, say maybe Health, Law enforcement, defence, education, roading, etc. So the Govt does the main funding through the main tax take, but the tax-payers also get 'some' say as to where they would like their tax dollars to go.

aprilia_RS250

19th May 2010, 12:48

maybe what we should have a maximum number of hours worked - 40 is a good number.

Or maybe your hypothetical doctor should just wait a few years until he's a consultant and and earning $400,000 a year for a 40 hour week.

Quit your whining, if you don't have enough money don't count on the government handing you a tax cut, go and get a better paid job, get your employer to give you a pay rise or learn to budget.

That's what happens... the doctor then shoots off to Australia/Europe/US gets a better paid job and pays a lower effective tax. How does this affect you?? 30k less in tax revenue and YOU have to service his 100k bill and you're one doctor less!

And no he'll have to work like a dog for 20 years to get to a senior specialist position and earn 400k.

Stop my whining....haha...FUCK YOU! I'm perfectly obliged to whine as you're the one that wants my hard earned money!

avgas

19th May 2010, 13:18

I would never ask for a tax cut ever again if all the worlds problems were fixed.
Shit I would pay 5% more tax if I could shoot all the 'gangsters'. Huntin' Tax.

Tank

19th May 2010, 14:18

Personally my opinion on life is it's not the hard work that counts, it is the colour of your tongue...Over the years I have come to realise that those who are at the top, or those who are the biggest bludgers are brown tongued ass lickers....I have been passed over a few times when seeking better jobs by people with less skills who are purely ass lickers and in bed with the bosses so to speak. Yes life is unfair on your typical hard worker...but I wont bend over and lick ass...a spade is a spade, and hard work is always satisfying at the end of a day

If you are a middle aged married white man earning an average wage then you mean jack shit to every one, but if you are a queer, or from a racial minority, or any other minority then government wants to lick up to you...

Yeah - its all because they lick ass or sleep with the boss - nothing to do with you and your shortcomings at all : Yeah Right !

Fatjim

19th May 2010, 14:51

Theere are many things unfair with this system. A single income family earning $150k a year with a aparent at home looking after the kids pays heaps more tax than a double income bringing the same home with the government subsidising someone else to look after their kids. Business men paying their wives a salary, running most of their house hold costs through the business, a large amount of people under $50 a year not paying taxes.

TBH, I'm sick of being the bastard who has to pay for all this! Hard working tax paying people in this country get ripped off. This change helps address the issue that PAYE earners over 70K have been shouldering a completely unfair tax burden. This isn't about John Keys mates, they're the bastards who avoid paying taxes through business, trusts, LAQC's etc.

National, thanks for the tax cut, I doubt I'll be voting National, but thanks anyway.

Tank

19th May 2010, 15:29

. This isn't about John Keys mates, they're the bastards who avoid paying taxes through business, trusts, LAQC's etc.

.

Funny that - lets look at all the Labour MP's who have a trust and hide income thru it: (+ Helen Clark for fun - as located by Catus Kate)

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

Labour : Double standards since ages ago!

MisterD

19th May 2010, 15:41

Funny that - lets look at all the Labour MP's who have a trust and hide income thru it:

Which is exactly why the last Government left this loophole wide open.

Tank

19th May 2010, 15:45

Which is exactly why the last Government left this loophole wide open.

Funny Trevor Mallard now says "I agree with John Shewan and many others that wealthy and high income people use a trust loophole to avoid paying their tax.

They pay 33c instead of 38c.

It flows into eligibility for Working for Families and Student Allowances."

Their hypocrisy makes me sick - I wonder how many of them are getting working for families?

mashman

19th May 2010, 16:49

Im'm sure I heard or read somewhere that a money in a trust becomes tax free after 10 years?

Brian d marge

19th May 2010, 17:12

208256I think this says it all

Carry on, This is what doing nothing gets ya

Great job

Stephen

shrub

19th May 2010, 17:15

Stop my whining....haha...FUCK YOU! I'm perfectly obliged to whine as you're the one that wants my hard earned money!

Your paranoia is showing through my lad, I have absolutely no interest in your money - I have enough of my own to meet all my needs with a bit left over at the end. It would appear that you're really worried about missing out on stuff and not having enough money, and that must be quite frustrating. Have a look at your options, and instead of worrying about what you don't have, look for ways to get what you want. Even under the current incompetent government we live in a land of opportunity (I said the same thing under the last government, and I'll say the same thing under the next government) so look for an opportunity and take it.

ManDownUnder

19th May 2010, 17:22

Im'm sure I heard or read somewhere that a money in a trust becomes tax free after 10 years?

LOL... the only thing free with that theory is the stay at the taxpayers' expense... You might find the rate of interest charged byt he IRD is pretty high too - in a trust or not.

Death and taxes mate - it was true then - it's true now.

shrub

19th May 2010, 17:25

Funny that - lets look at all the Labour MP's who have a trust and hide income thru it: (+ Helen Clark for fun - as located by Catus Kate)

Labour : Double standards since ages ago!

Good bit of sleuthing - pity quite a few of them are registered charitable trusts and the MP concerned is very unlikely to be a beneficiary of those trusts, and is more likely to be filling the role of trustee or even settlor.

Nice work though, ten points for effort. Starter for another 10 points: What is the role of a trustee in a trust? How does that differentiate from the role of beneficiary? And under what circumstances can a beneficiary be a trustee? (Sorry, being a little cheeky here. I know a bit about trusts).

But you're bang on the money with your conclusion, Labour are as duplicitous as National.

aprilia_RS250

19th May 2010, 18:10

Your paranoia is showing through my lad, I have absolutely no interest in your money - I have enough of my own to meet all my needs with a bit left over at the end.
You may need to upskill, or even completely retrain, but it will open a lot of doors that were once closed to you. Don't blame other people for your circumstances - look at what you can change and make those changes so you can have what you want instead of envying others.

All that stuff you mentioned... I never mentioned gender/sexuality....

ANYWAY back to topic

You do think I should pay more tax. Here you are, saying on how I should be legally obliged to part with more of my money as you know best and you have all the credentials and understanding of economics to paint a pretty little picture in your mind that someone like me will help you in your quest to achieve all the things this country is missing.

But the picture you should really be painting in your mind is how happy I will BE when I get a tax cut and go to the dealer to get me one of F4s.http://www.mcnews.com.au/Wallpaper/MVagusta/F4/Index.htm

shrub

19th May 2010, 18:49

ANYWAY back to topicBut the picture you should really be painting in your mind is how happy I will BE when I get a tax cut and go to the dealer to get me one of F4s.http://www.mcnews.com.au/Wallpaper/MVagusta/F4/Index.htm

I'm sure you'd be happy with an F4 - don't count on any tax cuts this lifetime that will get you one of those puppies that hasn't been ridden with no oil and left in the rain for 5 years. My bet is Father John and Uncle Bill will give us around $20.00 a week tax cut and take around $15.00 a week in extra GST. And your new MV will be a little more expensive thanks to the rise in GST - probably about your annual tax cut.

Gotta love politicians and their PR companies - they can make people excited about getting ripped off.

Smifffy

19th May 2010, 18:53

shrub

19th May 2010, 19:48

Of course people don't have to spend that cut and lose it on GST, they could use it to pay down existing debt, or heaven forbid save. That is just so un-kiwi I should report myself to the NZSIS.

Save? What is this concept "save" you speak of? Do you mean save money by buying it now on hire purchase with my tax cuts? I hear foreign devils do this "save" thing, and then the kind foreign devils lend us money so we can buy things now.

I hear that these foreign devils invest some of this money they "save" in businesses by buying "shares" and that their banks foolishly lend the rest of theur money to businesses instead of just to property investors. Has nobody told the fools that this is not good sense?

cowpoos

19th May 2010, 19:56

My bet is Father John and Uncle Bill will give us around $20.00 a week tax cut and take around $15.00 a week in extra GST. And your new MV will be a little more expensive thanks to the rise in GST - probably about your annual tax cut.

Gotta love politicians and their PR companies - they can make people excited about getting ripped off.

You havn't really thought that out have you...you are clever...I can tell by your arguments/debates. You must surely understand how this gives incentives to some people to better themselves, Were as, to others that will consume all their income no matter what it will be Null to them.

And in regard to tax cuts...why the hell shouldn't people who earn more get as much of their money in their hand as a percentage as someone earning less??

we'll make an example.

Moneybags earns 100,000 a year....brokearse bob...earns 40,000 year...and for this example...we have a flat line tax rate of 10%.

Moneybags pays 10,000 a year to the government...Bob pays 4,000 a year.

So for that money...they use the same infrastructure, same government services [well actually Bob gets more in many circumstances], and get the same privileges . I would say Moneysbags gets a pretty raw deal for his dollars...considering he is subsidizing Bob for not paying an equal amount??

MisterD

19th May 2010, 20:33

Good bit of sleuthing - pity quite a few of them are registered charitable trusts and the MP concerned is very unlikely to be a beneficiary of those trusts, and is more likely to be filling the role of trustee or even settlor.

It's not really the beneficiary angle that's important though is it? The significant part is when they're the settlor moving income-earning assets to the control of a trust which pays a lower tax rate on that income than the individual would...

shrub

19th May 2010, 20:50

You havn't really thought that out have you...you are clever...I can tell by your arguments/debates. You must surely understand how this gives incentives to some people to better themselves, Were as, to others that will consume all their income no matter what it will be Null to them.

And in regard to tax cuts...why the hell shouldn't people who earn more get as much of their money in their hand as a percentage as someone earning less??

we'll make an example.

Moneybags earns 100,000 a year....brokearse bob...earns 40,000 year...and for this example...we have a flat line tax rate of 10%.

Moneybags pays 10,000 a year to the government...Bob pays 4,000 a year.

So for that money...they use the same infrastructure, same government services [well actually Bob gets more in many circumstances], and get the same privileges . I would say Moneysbags gets a pretty raw deal for his dollars...considering he is subsidizing Bob for not paying an equal amount??

With respect, I have thought it through, and I've looked past the Rogernomic rhetoric that argues "tax cuts boost production because paying less in tax encourages people to work harder and get ahead", a flawed piece of ideology at best.

Let's look at your two examples of Moneybags and Brokearse Bob. Do you think Bob only earns $40k because he doesn't want to pay as much tax as Moneybags? Do you think that if Moneybags had the chance to earn $200,000 he'd turn it down because he'd be paying more in tax?

If you look at successful people, I wonder how many of them would turn around and say "I'm not interested in working harder, working smarter, having a better business or being more highly qualified because if I do I'll pay a higher percentage of my income in tax?" If I earn $100k, I pocket $72,000 more or less. Under what looks like the likely tax rates I'll pocket $74,000, or an extra $40.00 a week.

Do you seriously think an extra $40.00 a week will get someone on $100k working harder and transform their lives? If anything they'll chill a bit because they don't NEED to work harder.

shrub

19th May 2010, 20:52

It's not really the beneficiary angle that's important though is it? The significant part is when they're the settlor moving income-earning assets to the control of a trust which pays a lower tax rate on that income than the individual would...

And that matters where the offending MP was the trustee of a charitable trust like the Karitane trust?

Like I said, they're as bad as National.

aprilia_RS250

19th May 2010, 21:24

Do you seriously think an extra $40.00 a week will get someone on $100k working harder and transform their lives? If anything they'll chill a bit because they don't NEED to work harder.

You're not comparing it on a relative basis here. Moneybags has to exert a lot more effort to get to a 100k salary and has to take on more risk (if starting a business/investing etc.) . Moneybags also probably has a lot more responsibility involved in his line of work compared to Brokearse. People do not take on risk/responsibility unless they have a chance of receiving a good pay-off. Someone who has a proven track record of being successful while taking on immense amount of responsibility/risk are deemed as being reliable hence this further adds on to their personal/career value, as historical performance is one of the indicators of future performance. These are the types of people you need to retain in NZ, a higher tax essentially makes their pay-off smaller.If you reduce the tax not only are you inciting them to stay in NZ but you will also attract this talent from overseas.

mashman

19th May 2010, 21:47

Like Sir Fred Godwin? (crawls back into hole)

rainman

19th May 2010, 22:20

and here is why "They pay the most tax because they have the most money The richest 1% (34,000) have an average income of $325,000; their total income is the same as the total income of the 1,345,000 lowest income taxpayers, who average $8,400 a piece."

There are around 4.2 million people in NZ. Lets assume that 3 million are of working age.

Marty believes that 44% of the income earners earn $8400 per annum
Thats 161 per week
thats $ per hour after tax. Well, well, well below the legal minimum wage. - So cannot be a accurate figure for people out there working.

So who make up this number? you got it - beneficiaries. The standard / left / labour actually think just because someone is taxed on their benefit (a silly exercise ifd there ever was one) that this is 'earning' a income.

fucken lefties. burn them all.

Here are some facts from the IRD, wage and salary earners only, so excluding filthy bennies and people deriving an income from investments, among others. 2008 figures:
- Top 1.12% (26,710 people) make $232.485.96 on average. Given the band starts at $150k I expect there are some big numbers in there, and perhaps if I had better data and could exclude that pesky 0.12% the average would creep up to Marty's $325k. Or maybe the wealthy are not affected by the recession like the poor are, and the 2009 data shows them making out like gangbusters, yet again.

Those 26,710 people make as much as the bottom 887,840 (actually a few less, it's hard to be exact as the data is banded) - all of whom earn less than $19,000 per annum. Average income for this group is $7201.41 per annum. $138.49 per week. Yes, below minimum wage if they work a full 40 hour week. Perhaps not everyone is fortunate enough to have a full time job?

BTW, the 887,840 are 37.4% of the wage and salary earning population, which in 2008 was 2,375,550.

Doesn't look to me like removing the beneficiaries makes much difference.

71.5% of the wage earners earned $45k or less, or just 39.5% of the income, average $19k-ish per year.
26.4% earned between $45k ad $120k, 49.2% of the income, average $64k-ish. (Most of the gimme-my-tax-cut crowd here, I guess).
2.1% over $120k, being 11.3% of the income. Average $186k and change.

If I could get more detail on the top band I suspect the data would look more extreme, there must be quite a few just inside that $150k range.

That sound fair to you? That bottom 72% are just all lazy fucks, I guess?

What is the baseline cost to run a household for Mr and Mrs NZ Average, I wonder? Rent/mortgage, food, petrol, cars, schools, insurance, medical and all the rest? This is why we need WfF and similar things, I suspect.

rainman

19th May 2010, 22:36

Moneybags has to exert a lot more effort to get to a 100k salary and has to take on more risk (if starting a business/investing etc.) . Moneybags also probably has a lot more responsibility involved in his line of work compared to Brokearse. People do not take on risk/responsibility unless they have a chance of receiving a good pay-off. Someone who has a proven track record of being successful while taking on immense amount of responsibility/risk are deemed as being reliable hence this further adds on to their personal/career value

Calling bullshit here. Compare the effort of a comfy office job (say, an accountant) vs almost any minimum wage labouring or factory job, no contest, the worse paid job is harder work. At the top end there can be more stress, but not always. And responsibility... pah. What I'd respect would be accountability. I've seen so many cases of senior execs stumbling from one incompetent action to the next being pushed gently aside with a large golden handshake. One company I worked for the CEO signed a partnership that completely destroyed a big chunk of the business (one that ould have been a great engine for growth). Cost millions. Was he marched out unceremoniuosly? Not quite, over 2 or so years he made about $3.5m. AUD$, too, and that's just the real salary and handshake component, not the options and other perks. Complete cretin. And yet he floated off to another big paying role, because he knew the right people.

Unfortunately his is not an unusual or isolated case. Reynolds going to show some accountability for the terrible state of Telecom? Not likely.

As for risk, the mighty captains of the banking industry are clearly taking the consequences of their risky behaviour... oh, wait...

aprilia_RS250

19th May 2010, 23:42

Calling bullshit here. Compare the effort of a comfy office job (say, an accountant) vs almost any minimum wage labouring or factory job, no contest, the worse paid job is harder work. At the top end there can be more stress, but not always. And responsibility... pah. What I'd respect would be accountability. I've seen so many cases of senior execs stumbling from one incompetent action to the next being pushed gently aside with a large golden handshake. One company I worked for the CEO signed a partnership that completely destroyed a big chunk of the business (one that ould have been a great engine for growth). Cost millions. Was he marched out unceremoniuosly? Not quite, over 2 or so years he made about $3.5m. AUD$, too, and that's just the real salary and handshake component, not the options and other perks. Complete cretin. And yet he floated off to another big paying role, because he knew the right people.

Unfortunately his is not an unusual or isolated case. Reynolds going to show some accountability for the terrible state of Telecom? Not likely.

As for risk, the mighty captains of the banking industry are clearly taking the consequences of their risky behaviour... oh, wait...

Easy job 'cos you sit in an air conditioned office in a comfy chair? Fark! What else you gonna try and sell me, that the lolly pop man that turns the stop/go sign at roadworks is one of the most disadvantaged people in the workforce 'cos he has to find some sort of entertainment while sitting in the cold? Making deals, creating growth, negotiating is where the real bread winner is for a business, not lifting crates and driving forklifts.

The bankers have paid, most went down with their company (Bear Stern, Lehman....) even more fired due to cost cutting measures.

rainman

20th May 2010, 08:32

Easy job 'cos you sit in an air conditioned office in a comfy chair? Fark!

I've done both and I know which one I'd rather do...

Making deals, creating growth, negotiating is where the real bread winner is for a business, not lifting crates and driving forklifts.

Listen carefullly: more difficult, not more lucrative for the business. Try to keep up.

The bankers have paid

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!! Funny man.

MisterD

20th May 2010, 08:53

I've done both and I know which one I'd rather do...

Same. I'd be driving tractors if it paid the bills...

scott411

20th May 2010, 08:58

71.5% of the wage earners earned $45k or less, or just 39.5% of the income, average $19k-ish per year.
26.4% earned between $45k ad $120k, 49.2% of the income, average $64k-ish. (Most of the gimme-my-tax-cut crowd here, I guess).
2.1% over $120k, being 11.3% of the income. Average $186k and change.

so 28.5% of the working population paid 60.5% of the tax, and those are the ones that are getting some more of the tax cut, seems fair to me, they were paying the most anyway

Tank

20th May 2010, 09:01

One thing I would LOVE to see is income splitting. Lets say I earn $200k - and my wife nothing (Stay at home Mum).

We get no g'ment help and I pay more tax than 2 people earning $100k each. So our family is actually worse off than the other despite having the same income coming in.

aprilia_RS250

20th May 2010, 09:03

I've done both and I know which one I'd rather do...

Listen carefullly: more difficult, not more lucrative for the business. Try to keep up..

As a student I worked with a construction crew. My job was just to help out with lifting and basics. I did everything from helping build homes to digging holes in the ground. I can tell you its piss easy work, no thinking involved. Where as in an office I have been really streched to hit deadlines, close deals etc. Brains are worth a lot more than brawn in this day and age. You simply fail to inderstand that

GOONR

20th May 2010, 09:07

...One company I worked for the CEO signed a partnership that completely destroyed a big chunk of the business (one that ould have been a great engine for growth). Cost millions. Was he marched out unceremoniuosly? Not quite, over 2 or so years he made about $3.5m. AUD$, too, and that's just the real salary and handshake component, not the options and other perks. Complete cretin. And yet he floated off to another big paying role, because he knew the right people.....

Not Suncorp by any chance, sounds very familiar to me.

MisterD

20th May 2010, 09:22

One thing I would LOVE to see is income splitting.

Won't happen...giving publicity opportunities to Peter Dunne at the mid-term budget? Nope.

Mudfart

20th May 2010, 09:28

ive done drainlaying all over auckland city, open trenching with diggers, watching out for underground gas pipes, telecom cables, fibreoptics, and most dangerous of all, underground power cables. Then we would lay heavy water pipes, usually concrete lined steel or MDPE, which was farkin heavy, join it all up, cut it, make fire hydrant risers, valves and then cover back up with metal. then we would have to reinstate whatever we had carved up originally, topsoil, concrete driveway, footpath, hotmix road etc.
I will tell you in the middle of summer, doing a job for vector wearing their compulsory full length overalls is not fun.
You work from dawn to dusk during daylight savings, one day I worked at MT Roskill roundabout for 17 hours.
If I ever did the lollipop, it was because I had worked my ass off the day before.
And dont think the lollipop is easy either. It really sucks to stand there all day in the heat, I would rather have been doing the labour!.
Also a couple of times working in the dodgey areas of beautiful south auckland, the odd drunk, drugged islander would walk past and want to fight, it was brilliant. Well, I had my boys to back me up.
So dont think the lollipop guy is always some reject asswipe, although I did meet some retard temps from allied labour hire, who did it.
We were paid a flat rate, had to work 6 days a week so I only saw my kids on saturday nite, sunday. I went to work wen they were asleep, got home wen they were asleep. But with all the hours, the money was ok, however the work was full on labour, taxing on the body and very stressful.
One guy died of dehydration wearing the vector overalls, and occasionally live water lines, power, gas, telecoms were cut.

Jonno.

20th May 2010, 09:28

As a student I worked with a construction crew. My job was just to help out with lifting and basics. I did everything from helping build homes to digging holes in the ground. I can tell you its piss easy work, no thinking involved. Where as in an office I have been really streched to hit deadlines, close deals etc. Brains are worth a lot more than brawn in this day and age. You simply fail to inderstand that

Getting a job with your dad's friends building crew is not labouring.

How about getting to town at 5.30am so you can get to your job at 7 if you even get one. Lifting shit that would make osh shit their pants and using concrete breaker for 10x the recommended max time. Get put into a hole and dig for 12 hours and getting minimum wage. Pulling out mouldy timber without protection. Guess what happens when you get sick? Nothing.
You know what get you get for saying anything about your conditions? Unemployed.
You work with people who pick up cigarette butts.
Then you get home at 8pm; you're out from 5.30-8, 15.5 hours but you only get paid for 10 and at minimum wage.

I've done 120+ hours/week in construction as a carpenter; there will never be more stress in any office job.
That's why I'm going back to university.

Tank

20th May 2010, 10:08

I've done 120+ hours/week in construction as a carpenter; there will never be more stress in any office job.
That's why I'm going back to university.

Depends on the office job - Ive had to made decisions that have made me physically ill. I have ended up in hospital with panic attacks.

Perhaps when you are responsible for the livleyhood of people and understand that decisions you make can break people - and you are forced into horrid situations - then, perhaps you can comment on stress - but dont for one second discount the amount of stress in some office bound roles.

edit - while Im at it - my old job and the stree in it almost cost me my marriage, and I was close to a breakdown. But Heh - its a office and us managers dont really care about the workers - fucken yeah right! I fucken loved telling mates that their jobs were gone, with people I had worked with for years and watched their kids grow up - piece of piss.

Lets see some minimum wage fucker end up on a hospital bed because of stress in his role.

rainman

20th May 2010, 10:21

so 28.5% of the working population paid 60.5% of the tax, and those are the ones that are getting some more of the tax cut, seems fair to me, they were paying the most anyway

Wikipedia has some sensible justifications for progressive taxation (and yes, some criticisms too). Perhaps you should read them.
Which countries out there have a flat tax? Where is the evidence it produces better outcomes, not just more inequality and therefore worse outcomes?

One thing I would LOVE to see is income splitting.

Me too. Doesn't affect me now (and the likelihood of it being to my personal benefit in future is minimal as the kids are older), but it would have been nice a while back. Pity it would make Dunne look good, though.Oh, and the revenue loss would have to be made up somewhere - maybe we could just up the tax on the really rich pricks...? :)

Brains are worth a lot more than brawn in this day and age. You simply fail to inderstand that

We're talking about effort, not value. Got it this time?

Not Suncorp by any chance, sounds very familiar to me.

No, but it's a too-common tale.

I've done 120+ hours/week in construction as a carpenter; there will never be more stress in any office job.
That's why I'm going back to university.

Good onya, and good luck. I'm keen to go back and study more but am struggling to find a way to pay the mortgage at the same time.

rainman

20th May 2010, 10:33

Depends on the office job - Ive had to made decisions that have made me physically ill.

Me too, and I'm not saying managing a business or people is easy. I've lived in both worlds, and I'd absolutely rather have an office job than a ditch digging or factory job. There are stresses in low wage labour too - mainly of wondering how you're going to pay for the mortgage/rent, the major service on the car, or the kids school uniform/trips. Or whether some senior psycho is going to come over from afar and can your unit and your jobs.

I've also had decisions made by others, affecting me, that have made me physically ill. It's not all one-way...

Perhaps when you are responsible for the livleyhood of people and understand that decisions you make can break people

To be fair, many managers I have come across don't have that much concern for others. I have personally overheard managers planning to axe someone because they "don't like them", no regard for the delicate personal circumstances of the person concerned. I've been given a really shit time by a manager because he didn't like my accent. And I've been given endless shit by seniorer managers for suggesting we take staff welfare into concern when going through the latest restructure, or take care with communication so that the process treats all affected with dignity. (Shit, following the fucking law would be a nice start in most cases!)

You may be an exceptionally decent chap and a fine manager. Not many are.

aprilia_RS250

20th May 2010, 11:12

We're talking about effort, not value. Got it this time?

YES! That's what I've been telling you. PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL! You can't charge a more valuable person too much tax as they'll fuck off overseas. You need the valuable folk in NZ. And that is what the budget being announced today is about.

Also tax cuts are good for an economy, read this from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/tax_cuts.asp?viewed=1

According to a December 2004 article in Celtia.info, a magazine distributed in Celtic countries, tax cuts have also shown positive results in other countries as well. Ireland's recent tax cuts are believed to have improved living standards significantly. For years, the Irish were faced with high unemployment, budget deficits and high taxes. In 1986, Ireland faced a fiscal crisis. After reducing government spending, the government lowered taxes on both individuals and corporations. Over the next 13 years, Ireland's per capita income went from only 63% of the United Kingdom's average to besting it in 2000. Ireland now enjoys one of the highest standards of living in Europe.

According to a May 2007 article in the Herald Tribune, tax cuts in Poland, Slovakia and Hungary before their entry in the EU have spurred economic growth in those countries.

MisterD

20th May 2010, 11:22

Ireland's recent tax cuts are believed to have improved living standards significantly.

Now is probably not the right time to be holding up Ireland as an example to follow, you've heard the term "PIGS" right? Although the fact that we have control of our own policy and they, being part of the Euro, don't - is significant.

aprilia_RS250

20th May 2010, 11:33

Now is probably not the right time to be holding up Ireland as an example to follow, you've heard the term "PIGS" right? Although the fact that we have control of our own policy and they, being part of the Euro, don't - is significant.

It talks about how Ireland grew due to tax cuts since 1986... So yeah it's a good example to follow. You can't blame the tax cuts for the situation they're in at the moment.

MisterD

20th May 2010, 12:03

It talks about how Ireland grew due to tax cuts since 1986... So yeah it's a good example to follow. You can't blame the tax cuts for the situation they're in at the moment.

Ireland grew for a bunch of reasons - shitloads of European money for the government to spend, subsidies and a low corporation tax rate which made it attractive for companies to invest there to gain access to the European market are generally accepted to be the major contributors.

Ireland's in the crapper now because they increased government spending at the same time as cutting income tax rates and they allowed (caused) a huge property speculation bubble to happen. Living beyond your means is bad mmkay?

We're currently borrowing $260M per week to fund government spending - this has to stop. My argument is that shifting the balance tax burden from productive activity to consumption a bit is probably good, but spending needs to be reigned in.

mashman

20th May 2010, 12:22

Depends on the office job - Ive had to made decisions that have made me physically ill. I have ended up in hospital with panic attacks.

Perhaps when you are responsible for the livleyhood of people and understand that decisions you make can break people - and you are forced into horrid situations - then, perhaps you can comment on stress - but dont for one second discount the amount of stress in some office bound roles.

In which case I more than qualify and have been qualifying for the last 9 months (at least)...

some of this has been work related... but the work related "issues" have all come about because the business won't make the tough decisions it needs to make... one of our guys had a heart attack last year adn we've all, at some point, thrown the dummy to the extent we go fuckin home... and all because of, what we call, the incompetency of management at the top... these guys walk around with smirks on their faces making decisions that affect how the "employees" work... we have tried to educate them, yet they keep kicking our department in the balls because they make bad, business related, decisions (zero accountability that gave one of my colleagues a heart attack at the end of a busy day)... and with my 15 years of experience and actually having had some CEO's as my client, don't for a minute think that your experience is indicative of what's actually out there... and that goes doubly for the larger companies that i've worked for...

Yes the office can be stressful, BUT, it's only like that when the other business departments don't puul their finger out and try to blame us... My experiences.

aprilia_RS250

20th May 2010, 12:53

Ireland grew for a bunch of reasons - shitloads of European money for the government to spend, subsidies and a low corporation tax rate which made it attractive for companies to invest there to gain access to the European market are generally accepted to be the major contributors.

Ireland's in the crapper now because they increased government spending at the same time as cutting income tax rates and they allowed (caused) a huge property speculation bubble to happen. Living beyond your means is bad mmkay?

We're currently borrowing $260M per week to fund government spending - this has to stop. My argument is that shifting the balance tax burden from productive activity to consumption a bit is probably good, but spending needs to be reigned in.

Yes so the Irish governement went on a full out shopping spree while reducing taxes.... Hmmm this isn't the same as National wanting to reduce taxes while simultaneously cutting costs and reducing public expenditure.

mashman

20th May 2010, 12:57

It talks about how Ireland grew due to tax cuts since 1986... So yeah it's a good example to follow. You can't blame the tax cuts for the situation they're in at the moment.

The IRA taking their foot off the gas in the early 90's probably had more to do with it than cutting taxes. After all, market confidence is everything isn't it?

aprilia_RS250

20th May 2010, 13:00

The IRA taking their foot off the gas in the early 90's probably had more to do with it than cutting taxes. After all, market confidence is everything isn't it?

sure you're probably right

mashman

20th May 2010, 13:05

sure you're probably right

is there a hint of sarcasm in your voice lol... it was a turbulent time and i doubt anyone really wanted to invest at that point... could be very wrong though... EU grants, subsidies and "special conditions" help the "poorer" countries along until they can stand on their own 2 feet... but once back on your 2 feet you won't receive the billions in financial aid... clawback is a bitch... which is why we see flurries of guys fixing already fine roads come clawback time...

MisterD

20th May 2010, 13:11

The IRA taking their foot off the gas in the early 90's probably had more to do with it than cutting taxes.

IRA activity is a significant factor in Northern Ireland for sure...the Republic, not so much.

mashman

20th May 2010, 13:18

IRA activity is a significant factor in Northern Ireland for sure...the Republic, not so much.

true... pretty sure it would have helped though... after all they are/were the Irish Replublican Army... i know i know...

aprilia_RS250

20th May 2010, 14:22

the numbers are out...

to work out how this affects you go to http://www.taxguide.govt.nz/

mashman

20th May 2010, 15:06

granted i haven't looked at the budget yet... but, using the above "calculator" and just changing the figure for rent/mortgage to a higher value, the numbers, other than tax cut, go up and not down...

it's confusing me, which of course i'm sure a few of you will decide that that's like shooting ducks in a barrel.

But i would have thought that paying more rent/mortgage would have brought my weekly and annual income down????

shrub

20th May 2010, 15:08

the numbers are out...

to work out how this affects you go to http://www.taxguide.govt.nz/

Oh happy day, i get an extra $26.00 a week. Because it is such an insignificant number and will have no impact on my lifestyle I'm going to do the smart thing and increase my savings by $26.00 a week. i didn't need it before I got it, so I might as well hang on to it.

Flatcap

20th May 2010, 15:12

the numbers are out...

to work out how this affects you go to http://www.taxguide.govt.nz/

At least $100 a week for me and the mussis
Glad i voted for National......

Tank

20th May 2010, 15:17

Enough to pay for a new KTM super moto with fuel and best part of the insurance. Thanks Mr Key.

Mully

20th May 2010, 15:59

Cheers Billy.

Much appreciated.

That's going to smack the living shit out of the mortgage......

W00t

rainman

20th May 2010, 16:26

YES! That's what I've been telling you. PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL!

Well duh! Not sure who has been claiming they are. If fact, it's a fairly core component of my logic thus far.

You can't charge a more valuable person too much tax as they'll fuck off overseas.

All depends on what "too much" is. And there are a few which I would be happy to see fuck off overseas - they do not all add as much value as you seem to think.

cowpoos

20th May 2010, 17:51

I'm sure you'd be happy with an F4 - don't count on any tax cuts this lifetime that will get you one of those puppies that hasn't been ridden with no oil and left in the rain for 5 years. My bet is Father John and Uncle Bill will give us around $20.00 a week tax cut and take around $15.00 a week in extra GST. And your new MV will be a little more expensive thanks to the rise in GST - probably about your annual tax cut.

Gotta love politicians and their PR companies - they can make people excited about getting ripped off.

But....the top 10% pay 70% of the tax.

True. As Georgie said, "It's all up to what you value". Why do we value the useless twats at the very top so much, that we misallocate our limited resources looking after them to the detriment of everyone else? 'Tis a form of inferiority complex, I think.

That;s the average, though - so distorted by the extremes. From LEED for 2008 (a bit slow to update, think they take 9 months), median annual earnings is $30,480. 78% of people earn less than the average, IIRC. You can't sensibly take an hourly rate and multiply it out full time - too many part-time employees, or self-employed battlers.

Dunno about the UK, but surely if we are a low-wage and low-skill economy we should be working on that as a means to improve the place, build growth, reduce social problems, etc? (Rather than just keep kicking those on the bottom of the heap). Stands to reason, dunnit? Tax cuts for the people at the very top don't help us at all - it's just a misallocation of resources.

That's because they are obscenely overpaid.

So, a global market for CEO's get's them to be paid more, while the same global market for low-skill roles end up with them paid less? Ain't capitalism grand? Where do you think this is going, medium term? Try running Air NZ without baggage handlers. Fyfe is probably the best of a bad lot, but still can't see him being worth $3m. He's just not that exceptional.

1. This is just a race to the bottom. Tax is not the only instrument for doing this. What about fewer FTAs, less overseas ownership, localisation incentives? If we are not initially as productive as others what would it take for us to get there? (Other than slashing wages through global wage arbitrage). Besides, if you keep cutting company tax you lose income, and either have to raise individual tax (shrieks!) or lose public services (meaning the punters pay for them anyway, tax, user pays, little difference). Where does this reasoning end?
2. Seriously high-paid types will always bugger about with trusts and structures. Align the rates all you like, this will still happen. Besides, why not align them at the top rate and not the bottom?
3. Like the tax-free allowance. Not sure about raising it with kids but that could be because it's Rog's idea and I find it hard to believe anything he proposes could be good for us. Also long term I'm less keen for greater population, but that's another kettle of fish.
4. So why not 25% GST? Slowing import consumption is good, except where a large part of your economy is retail. What are the total costs of kicking import-driven consumption in the head? How many importers and shopkeepers will go to the wall. What will their staff then do? Or is it just a game of passing the cost to the ordinary punter so we can reward our not-so-super-Supermen, again? (Don't get me wrong, I like reducing frivolous imports, just think we should build localised manufacturing first).

Here are some facts from the IRD, wage and salary earners only, so excluding filthy bennies and people deriving an income from investments, among others. 2008 figures:
- Top 1.12% (26,710 people) make $232.485.96 on average. Given the band starts at $150k I expect there are some big numbers in there, and perhaps if I had better data and could exclude that pesky 0.12% the average would creep up to Marty's $325k. Or maybe the wealthy are not affected by the recession like the poor are, and the 2009 data shows them making out like gangbusters, yet again.

Those 26,710 people make as much as the bottom 887,840 (actually a few less, it's hard to be exact as the data is banded) - all of whom earn less than $19,000 per annum. Average income for this group is $7201.41 per annum. $138.49 per week. Yes, below minimum wage if they work a full 40 hour week. Perhaps not everyone is fortunate enough to have a full time job?

BTW, the 887,840 are 37.4% of the wage and salary earning population, which in 2008 was 2,375,550.

Doesn't look to me like removing the beneficiaries makes much difference.

71.5% of the wage earners earned $45k or less, or just 39.5% of the income, average $19k-ish per year.
26.4% earned between $45k ad $120k, 49.2% of the income, average $64k-ish. (Most of the gimme-my-tax-cut crowd here, I guess).
2.1% over $120k, being 11.3% of the income. Average $186k and change.

If I could get more detail on the top band I suspect the data would look more extreme, there must be quite a few just inside that $150k range.

That sound fair to you? That bottom 72% are just all lazy fucks, I guess?

What is the baseline cost to run a household for Mr and Mrs NZ Average, I wonder? Rent/mortgage, food, petrol, cars, schools, insurance, medical and all the rest? This is why we need WfF and similar things, I suspect.

shrub

20th May 2010, 18:00

Cheers Billy.

Much appreciated.

That's going to smack the living shit out of the mortgage......

W00t

That's what I'll do with my tax cut - pay off my mortgage. And the funniest thing is I feel, well, DIFFERENT now. I feel kind of confident, positive and as though it's actually worth doing something with my life. I want to be a part of the bright new future that New Zealand now has, and that tax cut suddenly makes it worth while to better myself, work harder and do something positive with my life. I'm going to stop doing postgrad studies and become a forex trader like John Key.

*Leaves thread singing* I'm so excited, I just can't hide it.....

cowpoos

20th May 2010, 18:01

True. As Georgie said, "It's all up to what you value". Why do we value the useless twats at the very top so much, that we misallocate our limited resources looking after them to the detriment of everyone else? 'Tis a form of inferiority complex, I think.

That;s the average, though - so distorted by the extremes. From LEED for 2008 (a bit slow to update, think they take 9 months), median annual earnings is $30,480. 78% of people earn less than the average, IIRC. You can't sensibly take an hourly rate and multiply it out full time - too many part-time employees, or self-employed battlers.

Dunno about the UK, but surely if we are a low-wage and low-skill economy we should be working on that as a means to improve the place, build growth, reduce social problems, etc? (Rather than just keep kicking those on the bottom of the heap). Stands to reason, dunnit? Tax cuts for the people at the very top don't help us at all - it's just a misallocation of resources.

That's because they are obscenely overpaid.

So, a global market for CEO's get's them to be paid more, while the same global market for low-skill roles end up with them paid less? Ain't capitalism grand? Where do you think this is going, medium term? Try running Air NZ without baggage handlers. Fyfe is probably the best of a bad lot, but still can't see him being worth $3m. He's just not that exceptional.

1. This is just a race to the bottom. Tax is not the only instrument for doing this. What about fewer FTAs, less overseas ownership, localisation incentives? If we are not initially as productive as others what would it take for us to get there? (Other than slashing wages through global wage arbitrage). Besides, if you keep cutting company tax you lose income, and either have to raise individual tax (shrieks!) or lose public services (meaning the punters pay for them anyway, tax, user pays, little difference). Where does this reasoning end?
2. Seriously high-paid types will always bugger about with trusts and structures. Align the rates all you like, this will still happen. Besides, why not align them at the top rate and not the bottom?
3. Like the tax-free allowance. Not sure about raising it with kids but that could be because it's Rog's idea and I find it hard to believe anything he proposes could be good for us. Also long term I'm less keen for greater population, but that's another kettle of fish.
4. So why not 25% GST? Slowing import consumption is good, except where a large part of your economy is retail. What are the total costs of kicking import-driven consumption in the head? How many importers and shopkeepers will go to the wall. What will their staff then do? Or is it just a game of passing the cost to the ordinary punter so we can reward our not-so-super-Supermen, again? (Don't get me wrong, I like reducing frivolous imports, just think we should build localised manufacturing first).

Calling bullshit here. Compare the effort of a comfy office job (say, an accountant) vs almost any minimum wage labouring or factory job, no contest, the worse paid job is harder work. At the top end there can be more stress, but not always. And responsibility... pah. What I'd respect would be accountability. I've seen so many cases of senior execs stumbling from one incompetent action to the next being pushed gently aside with a large golden handshake. One company I worked for the CEO signed a partnership that completely destroyed a big chunk of the business (one that ould have been a great engine for growth). Cost millions. Was he marched out unceremoniuosly? Not quite, over 2 or so years he made about $3.5m. AUD$, too, and that's just the real salary and handshake component, not the options and other perks. Complete cretin. And yet he floated off to another big paying role, because he knew the right people.

Unfortunately his is not an unusual or isolated case. Reynolds going to show some accountability for the terrible state of Telecom? Not likely.

As for risk, the mighty captains of the banking industry are clearly taking the consequences of their risky behaviour... oh, wait...

Have you had your feelings hurt for being denied a more senior role??

cowpoos

20th May 2010, 18:04

That's what I'll do with my tax cut - pay off my mortgage. And the funniest thing is I feel, well, DIFFERENT now. I feel kind of confident, positive and as though it's actually worth doing something with my life. I want to be a part of the bright new future that New Zealand now has, and that tax cut suddenly makes it worth while to better myself, work harder and do something positive with my life. I'm going to stop doing postgrad studies and become a forex trader like John Key.

*Leaves thread singing* I'm so excited, I just can't hide it.....

Your change of tact surprises me?? its not sarcasium is it?

MisterD

20th May 2010, 18:34

Finally John'n'Bill look like they've got a clue as to which direction they're heading in. Now start cutting spending guys, there's no earthly reason it should be more than 30% of GDP.

Still we're forecast to be out of deficit three years earlier than the last estimate which is all good. At a guess, I should be mortgage-free about three years earlier too...

I shall have a small yet prudent Macallan now.

sidecar bob

20th May 2010, 18:34

Company tax in the high 20's is a relief.
I currently pay many times the value of my bike collection in tax annually, any less will be great.

cowpoos

20th May 2010, 18:36

Oh happy day, i get an extra $26.00 a week. Because it is such an insignificant number and will have no impact on my lifestyle I'm going to do the smart thing and increase my savings by $26.00 a week. i didn't need it before I got it, so I might as well hang on to it.

So you only earn around 50k thats not what you have been implying...through you hard work,etc,etc or have you been/are evading tax?

Pussy

20th May 2010, 18:40

It's a whole lot better than what that snivelling little leftie Cullen could ever have come up with.
John and Bill have done a good job

cowpoos

20th May 2010, 18:49

It's a whole lot better than what that snivelling little leftie Cullen could ever have come up with.
John and Bill have done a good job

They have....and for everyone!!

shrub

20th May 2010, 18:54

So you only earn around 50k thats not what you have been implying...through you hard work,etc,etc or have you been/are evading tax?

Very close, but I am also a full time student doing postgrad research and at the moment I normally work around 8 - 10 hours a week as a management consultant. Fortunately I can charge enough to get away with only working part time and still have a good lifestyle, and once I finished my studies (hopefully in 6 months) I intended to spend the newly freed up time writing a book and riding motorcycles, but these tax cuts have me excited about earning more money.

To hell with lifestyle, I want to work all the time now!

shrub

20th May 2010, 18:57

John and Bill have done a good job

Aren't they just the BEST? I luffs them; but only in a very manly and heterosexual SUV driving way of course, they're Nats and don't have a bar of that homo nonsense.

Tank

20th May 2010, 18:59

they're Nats and don't have a bar of that homo nonsense.

Yet another thing that separates them from Labour where its one huge fag / lesbo fest.

Hitcher

20th May 2010, 19:01

See more for yourself here: www.taxguide.govt.nz

shrub

20th May 2010, 19:12

Yet another thing that separates them from Labour where its one huge fag / lesbo fest.

(in a deeper voice) real men vote National. Big John and Mighty Bill wouldn't let a limp wrist whoopsie in the house if they had their way.

In all seriousness, given we were never going to see anything that showed political courage or economic imagination from the current pack of idiots (as opposed to the last pack of idiots), this budget is probably not bad on balance. Predictably it offers little that isn't formulaic and very predictable, and probably won't actually change much, but it was better than I expected. Yes, I am cynical about John and Bill (such manly names though)

aprilia_RS250

20th May 2010, 23:14

Oh happy day, i get an extra $26.00 a week. Because it is such an insignificant number and will have no impact on my lifestyle I'm going to do the smart thing and increase my savings by $26.00 a week. i didn't need it before I got it, so I might as well hang on to it.

Thats over 1300 a year. If you're not happy with it you can put in your daughters savings account, leave it for a rainy day give it to a charity and get a further tax deduction ;)

shrub

21st May 2010, 06:57

Thats over 1300 a year. If you're not happy with it you can put in your daughters savings account, leave it for a rainy day give it to a charity and get a further tax deduction ;)

You don't get it, do you? I don't give a toss about $1300 a year extra - I don't need it and don't particularly want it. If I need more money I'll go out and make it myself - that's a bit over a days work. I'd rather see money put into education, health, police and social security; all of which will contribute to making NZ a better place, whereas giving me $26 a week achieves virtually nothing beyond an extra few grand in the kitty in a few years.

Brian d marge

21st May 2010, 06:58

Seriously you people don't know what the fk you are talking about , where are u in the cattle truck on the way to paradise..... oh boy those showers will feel good!!!

hmmm that gas smells nice

Stephen

you lot realize that it was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST party ie the PEOPLE wanted radical change that caused the crap back in the day

( and after a lot of soul searching , i finally realised that ,,,looking over the fence and just being kind to the person next door ( yes he is Maori and has a patch and is one step removed from the gene Pool )is the answer

just a thought

I do

Stephen

sidecar bob

21st May 2010, 07:58

You don't get it, do you? I don't give a toss about $1300 a year extra - I don't need it and don't particularly want it. If I need more money I'll go out and make it myself - that's a bit over a days work. I'd rather see money put into education, health, police and social security; all of which will contribute to making NZ a better place, whereas giving me $26 a week achieves virtually nothing beyond an extra few grand in the kitty in a few years.

You (and I) are in a great position then, because i have no need for it either, probably due to good management & self denials, but think of the poor people with hopelessly depreciating cars, 42 inch plasma's & furniture all on hire purchase, they will be able to give it to Harvey Norman etc so the money can all go offshore. Sweet as!!

Tank

21st May 2010, 08:16

You don't get it, do you? I don't give a toss about $1300 a year extra - I don't need it and don't particularly want it. If I need more money I'll go out and make it myself - that's a bit over a days work. I'd rather see money put into education, health, police and social security; all of which will contribute to making NZ a better place, whereas giving me $26 a week achieves virtually nothing beyond an extra few grand in the kitty in a few years.

dude - if you were earning close to 1300 per day - you would be getting a fuck load more than $26 per week tax cut.

Im guessing you arnt an economist.

MisterD

21st May 2010, 08:18

you lot realize that...GODWIN!

Yeah, and "equal shares for all, kill the rich" worked really well in Russia didn't it.

shrub

21st May 2010, 08:22

You (and I) are in a great position then, because i have no need for it either, probably due to good management & self denials, but think of the poor people with hopelessly depreciating cars, 42 inch plasma's & furniture all on hire purchase, they will be able to give it to Harvey Norman etc so the money can all go offshore. Sweet as!!

Jeez you're a cynical bastard. Probably correct though.

Maybe that's what I should do with the money - sell my $500 Nissan Bluebird and buy a really flash car. I'd be much happier when I went to pick up my groceries once a week and overall it would make me a better person and impress people when I drove past them on the way to the supermarket. And that 32 inch TV I got second hand for $200 - I know I think I really like it and reckon it's a cracker, but I'm probably wrong and if I had a plasma TV I'd enjoy TV and films much more. Hell, I might even start enjoying reality TV!

Flatcap

21st May 2010, 08:23

shrub

21st May 2010, 08:29

dude - if you were earning close to 1300 per day - you would be getting a fuck load more than $26 per week tax cut.

Im guessing you arnt an economist.

And I'm guessing you haven't read my earlier post where I said i worked 8 - 10 hours a week and spent the rest of the time doing postgrad study, as a result I will get around $26 a week. If I wanted to work full time I'd get a lot more, but I don't need to and don't particularly want to - been there, done that.

shrub

21st May 2010, 08:36

$1300 is closer to 2 days work than one. I'm also not an accountant (thank God, otherwise I'd have had to vote National).

Tank

21st May 2010, 08:48

$1300 is closer to 2 days work than one.

And I'm guessing you haven't read my earlier post where I said i worked 8 - 10 hours a week and spent the rest of the time doing postgrad study, as a result I will get around $26 a week. If I wanted to work full time I'd get a lot more, but I don't need to and don't particularly want to - been there, done that.

So you could earn good money - but choose do study because by your words you "dont need to, or particularly want to work more".

Yet despite your ability to earn more and be self sufficient - you choose to have a lifestyle that allows you to get money from the government (Working for families), and interest free student loans - and quite possibly accommodation allowances. (*not saying you get them - but you probably could given the numbers you just did / kids etc)

Yet you begrudge the people who do work hard and earn more money the tax cut - because it impacts the pool of money available to people like you who dont earn it out of a lifestyle choice. You are also choosing not to contribute as much (financially) to society by way of your taxes - because, well you have enough $ for you - and are quite happy to leave the paying of $ for others to the same people you are bagging.

There ladies and gentlemen is the mentality of the left.

Mully

21st May 2010, 09:05

Can't we all just get along and celebrate the fact that Mully (and Mrs Mully) are going to be mortgage free much quicker?

Us kids don't like it when you grown-ups fight.

shrub

21st May 2010, 09:07

So you could earn good money - but choose do study because by your words you "dont need to, or particularly want to work more".

Yet despite your ability to earn more and be self sufficient - you choose to have a lifestyle that allows you to get money from the government (Working for families), and interest free student loans - and quite possibly accommodation allowances. (*not saying you get them - but you probably could given the numbers you just did / kids etc)

Yet you begrudge the people who do work hard and earn more money the tax cut - because it impacts the pool of money available to people like you who dont earn it out of a lifestyle choice. You are also choosing not to contribute as much (financially) to society by way of your taxes - because, well you have enough $ for you - and are quite happy to leave the paying of $ for others to the same people you are bagging.

There ladies and gentlemen is the mentality of the left.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is the mentality of the right.

You have absolutely no idea whether I use a student loan (actually my studies are paid for by a scholarship because my research project has been identified as being of long term value to a specific industry) orwhether I get working for families (which I don't); yet you accuse me of using them both because I am able to. I suspect that I see a little envy here, and possibly some projection - if you were eligible for those benefits, would you take them? You also have no idea what I pay in taxes, which is a reasonable amount and quite fair.

And i am completely self sufficient, yet you automatically assume that because I don't want to work full time that I'm some kind of bludger. You also imply that I don't work hard (I probably work a bloody sight harder than you) and begrudge the poor disadvantaged high income earners their tax cut. I never said that - you're great at jumping to conclusions, aren't you?. WHat I said was that I didn't need or want a tax cut, and that I'd rather the money was spent on making NZ a better place, and that i didn't believe a few extra dollars a week would motivate and encourage high income earners to achieve more.

However I do think making more money available for people to use to better themselves through education and professional development is a great idea.

Nice try, no cigar.

shrub

21st May 2010, 09:17

Tank

21st May 2010, 09:34

And that ladies and gentlemen, is the mentality of the right.

You have absolutely no idea whether I use a student loan (actually my studies are paid for by a scholarship because my research project has been identified as being of long term value to a specific industry) or whether I get working for families (which I don't); yet you accuse me of using them both because I am able to. I suspect that I see a little envy here, and possibly some projection

You missed the part where I clearly said " (*not saying you get them - but you probably could given the numbers you just did / kids etc)"

- if you were eligible for those benefits, would you take them? You also have no idea what I pay in taxes, which is a reasonable amount and quite fair.

If I was elgible - would I take them - heck yes - but that wasnt the argument put forward. As for taxes - I dont know or care what you pay - Im talking PAYE here - and as you said - you have no particular interest in working full time - thus you minimized the amount you pay there.

And i am completely self sufficient, yet you automatically assume that because I don't want to work full time that I'm some kind of bludger.

No - I was saying that by not wanting to work full time - (your words - and one assumes post your uni work) - that you arnt contributing as much as you could if you chose to work full time. Thats not necessarily budging - but it leave a bigger bill for those that do work full time.

You also imply that I don't work hard (I probably work a bloody sight harder than you) and begrudge the poor disadvantaged high income earners their tax cut. I never said that - you're great at jumping to conclusions, aren't you?.

When you work - I have no idea if you work hard or not (and didnt infer that I did) - nor do you know how hard I work. As for begrudging the tax cuts to others - you may not have said it in those words exactly - but it sure is how it comes across.

WHat I said was that I didn't need or want a tax cut, and that I'd rather the money was spent on making NZ a better place, and that i didn't believe a few extra dollars a week would motivate and encourage high income earners to achieve more.

And that money to be spent on making a better place comes from wages - yet you say you have no particular interest in working full time - thus you are happy to use the services as they are provided - but expect others to pay more for them because they DO work full time - geddit?

However I do think making more money available for people to use to better themselves through education and professional development is a great idea.

Nice try, no cigar.

I dont smoke - its bad for you - and it also pisses me off my tax paying dollars going to people who smoke knowing its going to cause long term and expensive heath issues - that I pay for.

Tank

21st May 2010, 09:40

My research is going to have potential long term benefit to NZ and to NZ industry. From my research more money will be earnt in exports, more people will have jobs and the environment will be better off. So tell me how that isn't contributing to the greater good?

Im sure that we will see your fact on the $10 bill soon and all NZ'ers will know your name and you will be a national hero. Unless your research turns out to be pants - or like so many academics they over value their work etc etc

What do you do for a job? What are you contributing to the future?

Me - Im a strategist and help businesses make more money. You know - that pays for all those services.

T.W.R

21st May 2010, 09:43

actually my studies are paid for by a scholarship.

Dude that's funded by the Ministry of Education

aprilia_RS250

21st May 2010, 09:51

you believe that because I don't work full time in paid employment, and therefore am not earning as much as I could with a resulting decrease in the tax I could pay that i am somehow ripping the country off.

My research is going to have potential long term benefit to NZ and to NZ industry. From my research more money will be earnt in exports, more people will have jobs and the environment will be better off. So tell me how that isn't contributing to the greater good?

What do you do for a job? What are you contributing to the future?

Oh you poor thing, you're paying less tax and you think that's bad. All you really want to do is your research and earn just enough to get on by. One day you will write a book and ride your motorcycle, and live off an oil rag. This is how you think you should live, and you also think this is how everyone else should live too. Because afterall you're doing your post grad research which will shape the export industry of NZ and take it into a new, better, and prosperous direction. What's even worse is that if your research is successful the money will probably follow you, you'll end up like Sam Morgan and you'll be so depressed that you have all this cash but you just can't give it to the tax man... I feel for you man. I truly do.

shrub

21st May 2010, 09:57

Me - Im a strategist and help businesses make more money. You know - that pays for all those services.

Interesting. I'm curious to know who would pay money for strategies from someone who sees no value in research or education and who so readily jumps to incorrect conclusions based on ingrained assumptions. I wonder how much more money they make from your advice?

I was also amused to see that you admitted would enthusiastically accept working for families if you could, yet (incorrectly) condemned me for accepting it - pot - kettle? And the phrase "nice try, no cigar" was not a suggestion that you smoke. It's quite a common phrase dating back to the day when sideshow operators gave punters cigars as prizes and is a reference to your failed attempt to debate with me. But of course you knew that, didn't you?

And on that note, I have much better things to do than toy with you. Love your work and keep it up.

shrub

21st May 2010, 09:59

Oh you poor thing, you're paying less tax and you think that's bad. All you really want to do is your research and earn just enough to get on by. One day you will write a book and ride your motorcycle, and live off an oil rag. This is how you think you should live, and you also think this is how everyone else should live too. Because afterall you're doing your post grad research which will shape the export industry of NZ and take it into a new, better, and prosperous direction. What's even worse is that if your research is successful the money will probably follow you, you'll end up like Sam Morgan and you'll be so depressed that you have all this cash but you just can't give it to the tax man... I feel for you man. I truly do.

Yeah, it sucks to be me.

Tank

21st May 2010, 10:04

Interesting. I'm curious to know who would pay money for strategies from someone who sees no value in research or education and who so readily jumps to incorrect conclusions based on ingrained assumptions. I wonder how much more money they make from your advice?

Funnily enough - a few do, and they all seem to be doing OK. (Its called the real world - come visit us sometime)

I was also amused to see that you admitted would enthusiastically accept working for families if you could, yet (incorrectly) condemned me for accepting it

No - I said you are by choice reducing your income potential to a level that could put you to a level where you would be entitled despite being able to earn more. Somewhat different to someone who works their ass off and still only earns enough that they need it - big difference.

And the phrase "nice try, no cigar" was not a suggestion that you smoke. It's quite a common phrase dating back to the day when sideshow operators gave punters cigars as prizes and is a reference to your failed attempt to debate with me. But of course you knew that, didn't you?

Nope - was called humor - Im sure thay have tax payer funded night classes for that - you should sign up.

And on that note, I have much better things to do than toy with you. Love your work and keep it up.

Glad you like it - have a good day.