Wouldn't a tax threshold make more sense? [Archive]

Milts

20th May 2010, 20:20

Im sure that they had their reasons. And (again) if you have a look at the figures those on lower incomes have indeed done better proportionately.

edit - see:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2010budgettax.jpg

Sorry, but no. While proportionally it looks like they're much better off, with 16% vs 13%, in reality it equates to next to nothing. As a working student, this really sucks.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/budget-2010/3719700/Budget-Income-tax-down-GST-up

As you can see, the mighty 16% translates into.... $0.45 per week. Sweet deal huh. Furthermore, for someone on $120k the gain is $56 per week - 12 times the salary, 124 times the saving (in dollars). If that isn't discriminatory agains those on lower incomes I don't know what is.
Another interesting angle:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/politics/3716880/GST-rise-attack-on-poor

Robert Taylor

20th May 2010, 20:28

Milts

20th May 2010, 20:33

So if they gave you more where would it come from? Thin air?
Im grateful we no longer have a Labour Government, it seems the more Conservative Governments often exist to restore a country to living within its means.
It was no different in my day when I was apprenticed, low income and working hard to get through it. Governments do not owe the world a living nor should they.

Governments cop all the shit when crime goes up or people starve to death in the street.
Crime is higher in poorer areas and becomes unmanagable in areas of mass poverty. As a part of protecting their citizens governments should act to prevent crime and hardship - this is essentially what the benfit is intended for. It does get abused. It is also a hell of a lot better than having families starving in times of economic hardship as happened in the 20s and 30s.
As a result governments DO owe the worse-off citizens if not 'a living', a least adequate food and shelter.

Morcs

20th May 2010, 20:36

Agree with RT.
By getting the country back on an even keel, the government are going to piss a lot of people off.
Unlike labour who to try and keep people happy with lots of free hand-outs and stuff, ran the country into a lot of debt.

Flip

20th May 2010, 20:45

I'm guessing it's because that wouldn't allow for the alignment of the top tax rates with trusts etc, so we're stuck with "Working for other peoples families" for the time being. At least they've knocked the rort of well-off types taking rental "losses" off their income to qualify for it though...

This is just clever poor tax. It is also a way to transfer some investment money into the hands of the BRT ie the national party.

They have just put the price of a rental up 20% overnight. I just advertised a house I own in Wellington for what I believe is a fair rental and I got 200 calls in the 24 hours before I could kill the advert in Trade me. I had one woman in tears when I let it to another because there was nowhere to live. I know the market will dictate the rate but there seems to be bugger all out there to rent at the moment and its only going to be worse as another 5 or 10% disappear from the rental property pool. I think it's going to be a great time to be a landlord, there is almost a fixed number of tennants and the supply has shrunk by 10% in the last 2 years and will shrink again by another 10%. Its going to be like it was in the 70's and 80's when landlords were gods and could charge a fortune for a shitty old dive.

The ex rentals will go on the market but because there is already a shortage of properties for sale there will be little to no effect on the recovering property market.

Before you say bollox, rental's have been priced at about 7% of the value of the house for the last 20 years. Well without the LAQC status 7% wont cover the costs of servicing the debt, insurance, rates, and repairs.

Who is this going to hurt? People who have just got into the property market and have no capital and the poor whose rents are going up if they can find a place to live that is.

Woodman

20th May 2010, 21:05

Flip

20th May 2010, 21:32

To all those good average kiwi people who voted National.

Dol!

Homer

Winston001

20th May 2010, 22:03

The New Zealand government is currently borrowing $250 million a week to fund government spending. We've just seen the cot-case of Greece and its riots - all because the government there spent freely on social welfare in the past. I think our latest Budget is too generous by far.

As for tax-free $10,000 income - tend to agree but I suspect there are inequities involved.

Incidentally Gareth Morgan advocates a govt guaranteed income of $10,000 each as one path to social equity. Someone somewhere though must take up the tax burden to supply the money.

Ocean1

20th May 2010, 22:20

Yea but the guy earning $120k is paying $33000 in tax.
Thats a lot of money for one person to pay whether it is a percentage or not. Why should one individual pay more actual dollars than another individual. That is discriminatory.

Yeah, sorta puts the lie to the common beliefs about which end of the socio-economic scale's overly concerned about the almighty dollar eh?

Incidentally Gareth Morgan advocates a govt guaranteed income of $10,000 each as one path to social equity. Someone somewhere though must take up the tax burden to supply the money.

The cost would be fuck all, income from that source is bugger all anyway. 70% of personal income tax is paid by the top 10% of income earners. The ones, that is, who's still resident...

...TAXI !!!

rustic101

20th May 2010, 22:23

Is there an obvious reason why the Govt. don't just introduce, say, a $10,000 tax threshold?

It'd mean we'd all get the same saving and those on lower incomes would, proportionately, do better.

Saw this and though it was a great explanation of our tax system:

This little gem might help some of you understand the tax system better, but only if you want to!

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Jantar

20th May 2010, 22:34

Sorry, but no. While proportionally it looks like they're much better off, with 16% vs 13%, in reality it equates to next to nothing. As a working student, this really sucks.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/budget-2010/3719700/Budget-Income-tax-down-GST-up

As you can see, the mighty 16% translates into.... $0.45 per week. Sweet deal huh. Furthermore, for someone on $120k the gain is $56 per week - 12 times the salary, 124 times the saving (in dollars). If that isn't discriminatory agains those on lower incomes I don't know what is.
Another interesting angle:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/politics/3716880/GST-rise-attack-on-poor

You're looking at it the wrong way. Rather than getting something back, what the tax changes do is to allow each and every person to keep some of their own money. Money that they have earned.

By using that $0.45 figure you are being dishonest. For someone on the minum wage their annual income is $27000 or more, and they are better off by around $6.00 per week. Those earning less than the minimum wage are already being fully supported by the tax payer, but even they are better off.

Hitcher

20th May 2010, 22:38

See how your tax changes under the new regime here: www.taxguide.govt.nz

cowpoos

20th May 2010, 22:54

Is there an obvious reason why the Govt. don't just introduce, say, a $10,000 tax threshold?

It'd mean we'd all get the same saving and those on lower incomes would, proportionately, do better.

Everyone pays the lowest tax rate for the first $14,000 they earn...so it moots the changes between the tax scales. so low earners proportionally do the same as higher earns for that amount of income made.

cowpoos

20th May 2010, 22:58

Governments cop all the shit when crime goes up or people starve to death in the street.
Crime is higher in poorer areas and becomes unmanagable in areas of mass poverty. As a part of protecting their citizens governments should act to prevent crime and hardship - this is essentially what the benfit is intended for. It does get abused. It is also a hell of a lot better than having families starving in times of economic hardship as happened in the 20s and 30s.
As a result governments DO owe the worse-off citizens if not 'a living', a least adequate food and shelter.

and they do get adequete food and shelter...so if they want something more...they can get off there arse and work for crying out loud.

People like you are really fucking thick....please...please go to austrailia!!

scracha

20th May 2010, 23:03

Fairest would be scrap income tax completely. Put GST up to 30%. Make food, safety gear and fuel GST exempt.

Think about it.

cowpoos

20th May 2010, 23:09

Fairest would be scrap income tax completely. Put GST up to 30%. Make food, safety gear and fuel GST exempt.

Think about it.

Only needs to be 26.9% go get figures from treasury...even less if you account for inbound tourists paying gst.

Milts

21st May 2010, 00:02

and they do get adequete food and shelter...so if they want something more...they can get off there arse and work for crying out loud.

People like you are really fucking thick....please...please go to austrailia!!

I really do love the irony of you calling me thick while in the same post using the adverb 'there' in place of the pronoun 'their'.

Funny how when the tories are in and the lefties complain, we get told to fuck off to Aussie/EU/Denmark.

However I've never heard a leftie tell a nat to fuck off to the US when they complain about labour/the greens. Learn to accept other people's opinions as valid for christ's sake.

I simply do not understand the idea that because someone earns more (often a huge amount more) than someone else, it is due to their 'hard work'. You cannot tell me that Sam Morgan worked 8730 times harder (227 million, his profit, divided by 26k, the amount earned on minimum wage) than a single mother working as a cleaner to support her kids. Just because someone earned more does not mean they worked proportionally harder. If nothing else, you need at least recognise that society could not function if the minimum wage jobs were not done by someone. If you do not redistribute the wealth at least to some extent, you have what is called rebellion. This would be terrible for those on top, except that they can afford to bugger off overseas and then everyone else gets to clean up the mess.

In one of my POLSCI classes we looked at various governments which were run by the rich who then opted to keep their profits. The end result was mass starvation and lawlessness. (Many examples in Africa where a group would take power, run the diamond mines/ using force to keep the population in check until they rebelled; the leaders then buggered off with the cash and the process was repeated by a different group. Much of the difference between democracies and dictatorships is this redistribution of wealth and care of the worker. It also happened in France in the 1790s, and led to the first 'modern' government). Like it or not, the government has a responsibility to redistribute the wealth among the people.

You cannot tell me that a system whereby 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth is 'fair'. This is disturbingly close to becoming a reality (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html). By taxing higher earners at a higher percentage, governments resolve this inequity at least to some extent.

People often harp on about the poorer people being too lazy, not wanting to work, or being able to be rich if only they tried. Some of this is certainly true; there are some success stories of people making everything from nothing, and some people certainly live on the dole because they would prefer it to working or are unused to the concept of a 40 hour working week. But turning nothing into millions is incredibly difficult and by no means the norm. Talk like this reminds me far too much of the aristocracy in the UK during the great depression, who were [I]convinced that millions of people were starving because they were too lazy to work. They could honestly not comprehend that people were looking for work which wasn't there.

Grow up and face the reality that we live in an imperfect world and if we didn't take something from the more fortunate, the less fortunate would suffer en masse.

IdunBrokdItAgin

21st May 2010, 00:45

Sorry, but no. While proportionally it looks like they're much better off, with 16% vs 13%, in reality it equates to next to nothing. As a working student, this really sucks.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/budget-2010/3719700/Budget-Income-tax-down-GST-up

As you can see, the mighty 16% translates into.... $0.45 per week. Sweet deal huh. Furthermore, for someone on $120k the gain is $56 per week - 12 times the salary, 124 times the saving (in dollars). If that isn't discriminatory agains those on lower incomes I don't know what is.
Another interesting angle:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/politics/3716880/GST-rise-attack-on-poor

So what I am reading from the above is that the cuts should have been even less tax to pay for lower income earners?

You do realise that most high earners already utilise trust tax rates to avoid paying the higher personal income rates? What the government did here was make that irrelevant - top income tax rate is now equal to the trust rate. Not all high income earners will not make the savings stated (as they are already paying tax at 33% through tax avoidance measures). What the government has done is save a shit load of IRD time and effort (read costs) investigating whether tax avoidance is actually tax evasion.

Savvy move if you ask me.

But, as ever, there will always be people demanding a bigger piece of the pie - even though they have done nothing to help bake the pie in the first place.

Milts

21st May 2010, 00:58

So what I am reading from the above is that the cuts should have been even less tax to pay for lower income earners?

You do realise that most high earners already utilise trust tax rates to avoid paying the higher personal income rates? What the government did here was make that irrelevant - top income tax rate is now equal to the trust rate. Not all high income earners will not make the savings stated (as they are already paying tax at 33% through tax avoidance measures). What the government has done is save a shit load of IRD time and effort (read costs) investigating whether tax avoidance is actually tax evasion.

Savvy move if you ask me.

But, as ever, there will always be people demanding a bigger piece of the pie - even though they have done nothing to help bake the pie in the first place.

I didn't say that the old system was fair.

And read my previous post explaining why they should be getting 'part of the pie'. You're welcome to disagree but at least have some sort of argument.

IdunBrokdItAgin

21st May 2010, 01:07

Grow up and face the reality that we live in an imperfect world and if we didn't take something from the more fortunate, the less fortunate would suffer en masse.

I believe that it is you who needs to face the reality of the imperfect world.

The use of the word "fortunate" would conjure up images of a lottery winner.

High income earners are not lottery winners (as fortune or luck is not generally involved) they are people who have put time and effort into a plan to amass assets or skills which can be utililised for future gain.

To want to reset everything, to make it fair/even from that point onwards, does not take into account an individual's (or their ancestors) effort prior to the point of reset.

To take from the "more fortunate" (to use your term) is to impose a penalty to those who wish to (or have already) advantage(d) themselves.

eelracing

21st May 2010, 02:07

To want to reset everything, to make it fair/even from that point onwards, does not take into account an individual's (or their ancestors) effort prior to the point of reset.

To take from the "more fortunate" (to use your term) is to impose a penalty to those who wish to (or have already) advantage(d) themselves.

Don't know about yours mate but my ancestors came here to get away from the class system referred to in Milts post earlier.

I have nothing against people improving there lot,but some want to keep advantaging themselves to the point of gross indecency.

Take a good look at Milts link re:'disturbingly close to becoming a reality'.

Tank

21st May 2010, 08:21

a better tax calculator that takes into account GST free rent mortgage etc https://nztaxonline.deloitte.co.nz/public/tools/personaltaxrates/ - makes the figures even better !

marty

21st May 2010, 08:36

Sorry, but no. While proportionally it looks like they're much better off, with 16% vs 13%, in reality it equates to next to nothing. As a working student, this really sucks.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/budget-2010/3719700/Budget-Income-tax-down-GST-up

As you can see, the mighty 16% translates into.... $0.45 per week. Sweet deal huh. Furthermore, for someone on $120k the gain is $56 per week - 12 times the salary, 124 times the saving (in dollars). If that isn't discriminatory agains those on lower incomes I don't know what is.
Another interesting angle:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/politics/3716880/GST-rise-attack-on-poor

hang on - on $10k you pay $1300. On $120k we pay $33k. We earn 1200% more than you, but pay nearly 3000% more tax? And, as a low earner, don't you get a rebate of around 1/2 your tax as well?

Increase in rent sure - how about my increase in rates (a tax on a tax - that really fucks me off), power, school fees etc. I reckon THAT's discriminatory. Although my double time overtime tax payments are going to reduce heaps!

note: calculations NOT done by a bean counter - are probably wrong :)

MSTRS

21st May 2010, 08:58

... For someone on the minum wage their annual income is $27000 or more...

... 26k, the amount earned on minimum wage...

I'd just like to point out that many people on minimum wage onlly have 30 hours a week or less work time. 30 hours is considered fulltime. That equates to $21060pa.

F5 Dave

21st May 2010, 11:37

. . .
I simply do not understand the idea that because someone earns more (often a huge amount more) than someone else, it is due to their 'hard work'. You cannot tell me that Sam Morgan worked 8730 times harder (227 million, his profit, divided by 26k, the amount earned on minimum wage) than a single mother working as a cleaner to support her kids. Just because someone earned more does not mean they worked proportionally harder. . . .
Maybe not harder, but smarter.
That empire that chap made brings lots of $ into the economy through tax etc & no doubt reinvestment. Bear in mind if TM wasn't established Ebay NZ would have flourished (as it has in US, UK, Aus etc) & as much money as poss siphoned off shore as possible.

In the real world the money has to come from somewhere, the world bank doesn't just award it to worthy people. But I do agree that inequity is to be avoided if possible. Just the real world isn't fair.

Milts

21st May 2010, 11:53

Maybe not harder, but smarter.
That empire that chap made brings lots of $ into the economy through tax etc & no doubt reinvestment. Bear in mind if TM wasn't established Ebay NZ would have flourished (as it has in US, UK, Aus etc) & as much money as poss siphoned off shore as possible.

In the real world the money has to come from somewhere, the world bank doesn't just award it to worthy people. But I do agree that inequity is to be avoided if possible. Just the real world isn't fair.

As opposed to how it is now, where Fairfax (an Australian media company) owns it instead? And Sam Morgan himself coming out in the media and saying it is unfair that he payed no capital gains tax?

It is a real issue balancing 'fairness' in terms of people keeping what they earn (or think they earn) vs avoiding massive wage discrepency. I did find the graph (in the link I posted earlier) of CEO salary as a multiple of average worker salary very interesting - CEOs are earning in the region of 350x to 500x the salary of the average worker... and this is leading up to a recession? Balancing what is 'fair' and what is 'right' is difficult and it will always be impossible to please everybody or achieve the perfect result. However I do not feel that reducing tax on the top 10 or 20% of society will legitimately help society as a whole and certainly not the bottom 50%.

I also have an issue with the 'smarter not harder' argument. A survey was conducted in two colleges in the USA in the same city - one an Ivy League college and the other a community college in a poorer, primarily black neighborhood. Something like 85% of those attending the community college had never used a PC in their lives - and these people are supposed to (in a 'fair' liberal society) be able to compete with people who've owned a laptop since age 5 by working smart? To further illustrate the example, Sam Morgan received tens of thousands of dollars in funding from his parents to start the business. Sure, it was an investment and not a gift, but how many people can ask their parents for that kind of money, and get it? Not to mention he had had the benefit of going through a public education system where IT literacy is taught or at least an option - at least our public education is, for the most part, capable of delivering good information to students, and University students have the student loan and student allowance scheme.

SPman

21st May 2010, 13:19

You do realise that most high earners already utilise trust tax rates to avoid paying the higher personal income rates? What the government did here was make that irrelevant - top income tax rate is now equal to the trust rate. Not all high income earners will not make the savings stated (as they are already paying tax at 33% through tax avoidance measures). What the government has done is save a shit load of IRD time and effort (read costs) investigating whether tax avoidance is actually tax evasion.
Why didn't they just raise the trust rate to 38%?

scott411

21st May 2010, 13:26

Why didn't they just raise the trust rate to 38%?

because if you get the trust rate to far away from the company rate everyone just puts the income into a business,

Motu

21st May 2010, 13:30

They had a low income tax free bracket in Australia,in the '70's and '80's anyway,dunno about now.I know part timers enjoyed it (Kiwi's enjoying a working holiday).I think it would be an incentive to those people on benefits (solo mums,sickness beneficiaries and pensioners) who want to work....they do exist you know.But now if they do work they are no better off,or sometimes worse off for trying to help themselves.They don't need handouts at the bottom,that just makes them put two hands out....but incentives to get on with their lives that have been interrupted by circumstances.

yachtie10

21st May 2010, 13:44

Saw this and though it was a great explanation of our tax system:

This little gem might help some of you understand the tax system better, but only if you want to!

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Love this explanation. saw it years ago and have been looking for it since

The tax system was not fair and it isnt now but it is a dam sight closer now than it was

Im all for helping the poor but you cant do that by tearing down rich

Coldrider

21st May 2010, 13:54

Remains to be seen how income sheltered to receive benefits and allowances (family tax credits, community card, student allowances) is going to investigated.

F5 Dave

21st May 2010, 14:39

As opposed to how it is now, where Fairfax (an Australian media company) owns it instead? . . .
well yeah, that was my point, it would have been offshore owned from the start.

You can never make it fair. Human nature won't allow it. The African nations mentioned is one extreme & supposed Communism is the other, but of course that cannot work for the same reason, Human nature will always make some pigs more equal than others, conveniently those with the power. All we can hope for is that as the pendulum swings that the amplitude is minimal, that it stays near center enough & that the do gooders don't wreck the environment that creates enough money to stop a country falling over.

In a depression the ones that suffer worse are of course the poor. And suffering can take on whole new levels we are lucky enough in our lifetimes not to have seen..

SPman

21st May 2010, 18:24

because if you get the trust rate to far away from the company rate everyone just puts the income into a business,
And that is bad...????????

Winston001

21st May 2010, 20:28

And that is bad...????????

No the money is already in a business, the accountancy skill is to derive the nett profit in the lowest tax vehicle - trust, company, partnership, or individual. The best answer is one flat rate across all of these so there is no incentive to waste time on trying to move to the lowest tax entity.

cowpoos

21st May 2010, 21:54

I really do love the irony of you calling me thick while in the same post using the adverb 'there' in place of the pronoun 'their'.

Umm...how is that a point?? You see...I see you as thick....because instead of learning how to go better your situation...you whinge about it...and make excuses for how unfair it is that someone else makes more money than you.

Because.....they are smarter!!!! who gives a fuck if you can spell/punctuate better....LMFAO!!!

I simply do not understand the idea that because someone earns more (often a huge amount more) than someone else, it is due to their 'hard work'. You cannot tell me that Sam Morgan worked 8730 times harder (227 million, his profit, divided by 26k, the amount earned on minimum wage) than a single mother working as a cleaner to support her kids. Just because someone earned more does not mean they worked proportionally harder. If nothing else, you need at least recognise that society could not function if the minimum wage jobs were not done by someone.

Nope....sam morgan worked 8730 times smarter....Because...minimum wage single mum...didn't know much about starting websites....and didn't come up with the trade me concept...nor did she come up with the marketing,promotion,etc

so whats the difference with Sam Morgan and minimum wage single mom...Please do explain your point???

In one of my POLSCI classes we looked at various governments which were run by the rich who then opted to keep their profits. The end result was mass starvation and lawlessness. (Many examples in Africa where a group would take power, run the diamond mines/ using force to keep the population in check until they rebelled; the leaders then buggered off with the cash and the process was repeated by a different group.

Is that all you learn't about these african nations??? is that why you believe they have shit economies ???

Much of the difference between democracies and dictatorships is this redistribution of wealth and care of the worker.

and yet your beliefs fit a communistic type society....and you have the cheek to say that??? WTF???

You cannot tell me that a system whereby 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth is 'fair'.

You can not tell me that its fair that the top 10 percent of earners in New Zealand pay 70% of the tax's...and pay for the life styles of poor useless people that have a welfare mentality...and think a benefit is their right...and hand outs are a must!! and at the same time being too dumb to know where the money comes from?? Where is the personal responsibility?? People need to learn to live off their own backs...not others.

Grow up and face the reality that we live in an imperfect world and if we didn't take [I]something from the more fortunate, the less fortunate would suffer en masse.

Communism fails....go do some more study...capitalism works great...go and compare some country's...and think WHY??? don't try and justify your arguments...or ingrain beliefs...asks yourself what makes a poor person in Serra Leonie a slave who dyes of hunger....compared to a poor person in New Zealand who is a lazy and or dumb arse...that whinges the government doesn't give them enough???