This is why we need a constitution here in NZ!

[munterk6]

Recently in the US a tax specialist lawyer was being harassed and investigated by the IRS for failure to file returns and Tax evasion. He took the IRS to court(something we CANT do here in NZ) and won!!! On the the basis of the original intention of the 16th ammendment of the Constitution it is actually ILLEGAL for the IRS (Federal Government) to tax personal income.
This will open a mighty big can of worms hopefully. Read this article about Tommy Cryer, the lawyer thats made history, and is fighting for the working man.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

[rainman]

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

Ho hum. You anarcho-capitalists are such boring idealists. Bet you'd be the first in the long queue of whiners once services started getting shut down.

[Robert Taylor]

Ho hum. You anarcho-capitalists are such boring idealists. Bet you'd be the first in the long queue of whiners once services started getting shut down.

There is no need for bureaucratic waste on the scale that is happening here and in other countries. Big Government as espoused by this outgoing ''government'' and those more lunatically dispositioned further leftwards is nothing more than a crock. Why has the civil service gravy train grown by 50000 or more in the last 9 years, for example?

[Steam]

Please, feel free to fuck off to a country that doesn't have tax.

[Ocean1]

Please, feel free to fuck off to a country that doesn't have tax.

Our grandparents did that.

The loosers followed 'em.

[EJT]

mmmm.... a decision made by a jury. Must be correct then.

[JimO]

Please, feel free to fuck off to a country that doesn't have tax.

hahahahaha

[Winston001]

It's actually a very interesting argument the guy makes. He says that the right to work is constitutionally protected and is a traded in return for money = wages. Not profit, not interest - which are taxable. Accordingly wages are not income (in the USA) and therefore not taxable.

Hmmmm....can't see the IRS sitting still for that - it'll lead to anarchy.

However this is no argument for a Constitution in New Zealand. The only reason he succeeded is that in this particular case, he persuaded 12 people with a clever argument that he shouldn't pay tax on his income.

One of the positive attributes of NZ is we don't have an entrenched Constitution. We do have the Bill of Rights which does most of what constitutional scholars want.

[geoffm]

One of the positive attributes of NZ is we don't have an entrenched Constitution. We do have the Bill of Rights which does most of what constitutional scholars want.

Not entirely, it can be ignored or changed on the whim of the government of the day, like any other law, and hence provides no real protection. THis is compounded by our single house, where a party with a majority is a dictatorship. Anyone remember Muldoon?

[rainman]

There is no need for bureaucratic waste on the scale that is happening here...

I agree there is some waste, there always is. Please list all the government services that you would cut in order to eliminate income tax. Saying "someone should run the place better" is easy. Actually working out how to do it, that's a different game.


Our grandparents did that

Sheesh, you must be an old bugger. :)

[Robert Taylor]

I agree there is some waste, there always is. Please list all the government services that you would cut in order to eliminate income tax. Saying "someone should run the place better" is easy. Actually working out how to do it, that's a different game.



Sheesh, you must be an old bugger. :)

We had someone running this place better and at lower cost, now we have had 9 years of costly PC nonsense, for one. How about all the more recent low grade immigrants that are milking the system? Costly court cases for Middle Eastern immigrants. Taxpayer funded hiphop tours. The cost of administering''working for families'' when it would have been simpler to tax them and daily commodities less in the first place. Just a perverse money go round. Throwing money at yachting regattas. Funding the ''great'' pacifist of her time ( and her entourage ) to attend war remembrance services around the globe ( hypocrisy ) 120 MPs and their hangers on, why do we need so many of these parasites?
Just the tip of the iceberg. If we had more people in parliament that had business sense we would be a lot better for it. And that need not earn the tired old socialist rebuke that it would screw the workers. We have the most corrupt,arrogant and inept Government ever and I for one will be very happy to see the end of them.

[Ocean1]

Sheesh, you must be an old bugger. :)

Old? Perhaps.

In the 1920s and 1930s the average personal income tax rate was 3.3 %, the majority of wage earners paid none at all. NZ company tax averaged 35.4%, the highest in the western world, Australia's was then a tad ove 5%. We invented the most effective disincentive to success the world has ever known, and idiots have been wondering what's going wrong ever since.

[Forest]

Please, feel free to fuck off to a country that doesn't have tax.

What - like Dubai?

Sounds good to me.

[awayatc]

. We have the most corrupt,arrogant and inept Government ever and I for one will be very happy to see the end of them.

trouble is that it will take many years to undo the damage done, at least one generation......It takes people with vision to take charge of the big turn around....Who would that be?:bye:

[rainman]

In the 1920s and 1930s the average personal income tax rate was 3.3 %, the majority of wage earners paid none at all. NZ company tax averaged 35.4%, the highest in the western world, Australia's was then a tad ove 5%.

Now that I did not know, thanks. One question though: What was this as a percentage of GDP? The latest stats I can find shows us spending a bit less as percentage of GDP than the US, bastion of libertarian might and vision that it is. Tax is a common solution to the problem of providing a decent society, it seems.

I expect the expenditure of the government of the day would have been quite a bit lower - no roading, bugger all social services, I'm betting less (per capita or %GDP) of everything across the board. So my question stands - what would you cut from today's spending to eliminate income tax, or even reduce it to under 5%?

Here (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun07/11.htm#_tocAnalysis_of_Expenses_of_the_Statement_o f_Financial_Performance_) is the Treasury analysis of govt spend for the 12 months to June 2007. Revenue's what? $60b?

Please don't misunderstand: I support increased efficiency in government, and believe it's possible to reduce govt spend (through efficiency not policy change) by a few points without too much fuss. This should continually happen, like it does in any business. But the change this would make to personal tax would probably not even stretch to a pack of chewing gum. The real question is "what policy changes would you make to radically cut government spend", and as the answer to that is far more telling, it's seldom honestly expressed.

[Ocean1]

Now that I did not know, thanks. One question though: What was this as a percentage of GDP? The latest stats I can find shows us spending a bit less as percentage of GDP than the US, bastion of libertarian might and vision that it is. Tax is a common solution to the problem of providing a decent society, it seems.


Don’t know exactly, safe to assume that other than personal off shore dividends the corporate income WAS the GDP, so tax as a % of GDP would have been close to the 35% average company rate. Compares rather favourably with today’s estimated 55%. As for tax as a solution… current policy solves the problem of inequities of lifestyle by providing a directly result-driven disincentive to success.



The real question is "what policy changes would you make to radically cut government spend", and as the answer to that is far more telling, it's seldom honestly expressed.

What makes you think reducing tax rates has the effect of reducing tax revenue?
Oh I’d dispense with a shitload of “services” fer sure, but within a decade or so I’d be spending more.

[rainman]

What makes you think reducing tax rates has the effect of reducing tax revenue?

What makes you think it doesn't? A massive personal income rise driven by armies of capitalistas unfettered by the evil bondage of taxation?


Oh I’d dispense with a shitload of “services” fer sure, but within a decade or so I’d be spending more.

Good luck with that as a vote-winning ticket. Go on, 'fess up, what would you cut?

[Ocean1]

What makes you think it doesn't? A massive personal income rise driven by armies of capitalistas unfettered by the evil bondage of taxation?

Correct.

Both historic evidence and contemporary research indicates that a primary focus on corporate tax for public revenue cripples the economy. Anyone who doubts NZ has long been a socialist stronghold needs a history lesson. Until 1976 NZ, alone amongst our major trading partners, had a progressive company tax, (In the ‘40s the top company tax was 70%, of their TOTAL income), the effect was for companies to limit their size in order to remain viable. One of the strategies used to sidestep this, (one dear to the heart of early NZ Labour governments) was the invention of co-ops, a large company which could nevertheless be considered many small ones. Given this special tax “relief” farming boomed, but because of the tax structure NZ failed to develop any meaningful industry throughout the 20th century, leaving our standard of living at the mercy of fluctuating commodity prices. Sound familiar?

Having effectively crippled commercial enterprise on any significant scale, later administrations allowed inflation to ramp up the progressive personal tax rate, providing an increasing revenue source from lower and lower personal incomes. It ain't sustainable however, and one highly qualified estimate of the effective tax rate which would garner an administration the highest real revenue is 15 – 17%, across the board, personal and corporate.



Good luck with that as a vote-winning ticket.

Elections aren't about economic sustainability, they're about buying votes, and the majority of voters have long since become convinced that profit is, in fact the fruit of evil, to be removed from those who "cause" it and re-distributed to those that “need” it.


Go on, 'fess up, what would you cut?

Anything that smells of “thou shalt not” to start with. Far too much constraint on every imaginable activity, idiotic compliance costs are killing us.

[rainman]

What makes you think it doesn't? A massive personal income rise driven by armies of capitalistas unfettered by the evil bondage of taxation?


Correct.

Did you see today's Herald editorial? They don't seem to agree with you.


If National promises to abolish the 39c rate, and realign the top personal rate to the company tax rate, it will claim that lower rates will keep high earners in New Zealand and improve their incentives to work, resulting in no loss of tax revenue. Conservative governments have seen their Budgets turn to grief on this belief.

Do you have any real, non-ideological evidence for your point?


Elections aren't about economic sustainability, they're about buying votes

Well, yes, most of us figure this out eventually. You have a better system?


Anything that smells of “thou shalt not” to start with. Far too much constraint on every imaginable activity, idiotic compliance costs are killing us.

I'd suggest most laws fall into that category. Like:

Thou shalt not kill people
Thou shalt not steal other people's stuff
Thou shalt not do bad things to children
Thou shalt not cheat the stupid and gullible out of their stuff
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ox (or was it his wife, can't remember?) Don't shag his sheep, either.
Thou shalt not construct dangerous buildings that will fall down on the poor unsuspecting persons you sell them to
Thou shalt not try to fly things that are not airworthy, drive things that are not road worthy, or sail/drive things that are not seaworthy, lest in doing so you injure others less stupid than yourself
Thou shalt not pour diesel all over the road to enhance your boy racing experience
Thou shalt not drive your vehicle in a dangerous manner so as to endanger the lives of those around you. Thou shalt not drink and drive.
Thou shalt not pollute the commons
And so on


You going to abolish the police? :)

If you were to remove the tax take from income tax there'd be a lot of core services that would have to go too. Most NZ'ers don't want that.

You sound very idealistic. I thought you were an old bugger, and so should know better - or is that just your avatar?

[davereid]

I'd suggest most laws fall into that category. Like:

Thou shalt not kill people
Thou shalt not steal other people's stuff
Thou shalt not do bad things to children
Thou shalt not cheat the stupid and gullible out of their stuff
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ox (or was it his wife, can't remember?)

If you were to remove the tax take from income tax there'd be a lot of core services that would have to go too. Most NZ'ers don't want that.


Interesting list...

Lets start with the end "Most NZ'ers don't want that."

Thats quite right. Thats how we justify tax as well as a lot of other activities.

Its the old "majority rules" thing.
But somehow seem to fool ourselves into thinking that "majority rules" also means majority can use violence to meet its needs. AKA "Mob Rule"

Lts look again at our list..

Thou shalt not kill people
(But it's OK if the majority say its alright. I don't quite know why, but thats how it is.

Thou shalt not steal other people's stuff
(But it's OK if the majority say its OK, and its even more OK if you are going to use the money for something really good, like working for families. Yes, don't forgat taxation is theft - its just we like to pretend its not 'cos it will used for good stuff.)

Thou shalt not cheat the stupid and gullible out of their stuff
(I think that cheating the gullible is legal. Politicians do it all the time. And lets not mention Kiwisaver..)

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ox
But, if he sells it, its OK to make the seller pay you 1/3 of his profit, and make him collect 12.5% from the buyer while you are at it.

When discussing tax, the first thing to remember is that tax is theft. You can say anything you like, but if you use force to take something off someone else, its theft.

And income tax is the worst theft of all. Its actually like fines, applied for being productive !

[Ocean1]

Did you see today's Herald editorial? They don't seem to agree with you.

Do you have any real, non-ideological evidence for your point?


The historical tax refernces I posted are easy enough to verify, as are the results. Does the Herald have any real evidence or was that just their usual background noise?



You have a better system?

Better for what? Maintaining an economy capable of supporting the highest average standard of living? Hell yes.



If you were to remove the tax take from income tax there'd be a lot of core services that would have to go too. Most NZ'ers don't want that.

I don't either. I want to be taxed in a way that doesn't discourage me from generating more revenue, and therefore potentially more tax. I want an infrastructure that can believably be said to be adequate for the above activities. We can afford that, we just can't afford excessive spending on expensive social experiments with known negative outcomes.



You sound very idealistic. I thought you were an old bugger, and so should know better - or is that just your avatar?

We did the old thing already. Some learn early, some late, some never do: TANSTAFL

[rainman]

...tax is theft.....

Are we back to "well then feck off to somewhere where there is no tax" already?

"Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable - the art of the next best". Instead of idealistically bleating on here about the evils of taxation, tell me what you would actually do to run a functioning society in it's absence.

[rainman]

The historical tax refernces I posted are easy enough to verify, as are the results. Does the Herald have any real evidence or was that just their usual background noise?

Not in the editorial, they don't tend to quote sources there much. Dunno about "easy to verify", a moment's googling found this (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm). Seems the jury is still out.


Better for what? Maintaining an economy capable of supporting the highest average standard of living? Hell yes.

Go on. What's better than elections then?


We did the old thing already. ... TANSTAFL

My bad. TANSTAFL indeed - but that's basically my point.

Look, overtaxation is a bad thing, that's obvious. And it can possibly be argued that tax is an evil, but it is a necessary one if we are to live in the modern world. There are things that can be cut out of current government spending (no enterprise is 100% efficient, and governments tend to be big, complex things, and less efficient than average), and no doubt there's a lot of spending that you (or I) don't agree with... but to rail against the iniquity of modern society, whether from a "left-wing" or a "right-wing" perspective, is just juvenile individualism, and doesn't take us forward.

You're claiming that a radical change can be made to the tax system (massive reduction in income tax, not offset by other taxes) without destroying society. I'm arguing that, sure, you can cut bits out but the impact won't be huge, and so you'll still have substantially the same tax system. Yours is the greater claim, so needs the greater proof. Feel free to list the specific things you'd cut to reach your target. If you're resiling from taking income tax back to 3.5% or whatever, then by all means set another target.

[munterk6]

hmmmmm...interesting debate, pity its non productive:innocent:

[peasea]

[QUOTE=rainman;1580357]

You going to abolish the police? :)

QUOTE]



Sounds like a plan.

[Ocean1]

Not in the editorial, they don't tend to quote sources there much.

So it’s opinion? How come they get to have one and I don’t?

As a matter of interest have you ever been privy to the actual details behind a story published by any of the local rags?

Did you recognise it?


Dunno about "easy to verify", a moment's googling found this (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm). Seems the jury is still out.

Pure chance that you found such an extreme lobby group half way around the planet referring to a totally different economy?

Here’s a couple of slightly less hysterical sources:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4550849a1861.html
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Singleton.NZ


Go on. What's better than elections then?

Better? Depends on the objective, there’s been stable societies without elections for far longer that otherwise. Still, if one insists on them you could remove the temptation for politicians to buy votes by drafting core tax policy into a constitution…


My bad. TANSTAFL indeed - but that's basically my point.

Look, overtaxation is a bad thing, that's obvious. And it can possibly be argued that tax is an evil, but it is a necessary one if we are to live in the modern world. There are things that can be cut out of current government spending (no enterprise is 100% efficient, and governments tend to be big, complex things, and less efficient than average), and no doubt there's a lot of spending that you (or I) don't agree with... but to rail against the iniquity of modern society, whether from a "left-wing" or a "right-wing" perspective, is just juvenile individualism, and doesn't take us forward.

You're claiming that a radical change can be made to the tax system (massive reduction in income tax, not offset by other taxes) without destroying society. I'm arguing that, sure, you can cut bits out but the impact won't be huge, and so you'll still have substantially the same tax system. Yours is the greater claim, so needs the greater proof. Feel free to list the specific things you'd cut to reach your target. If you're resiling from taking income tax back to 3.5% or whatever, then by all means set another target.

I made no such claim. I simply pointed out that the people responsible for generating a great deal of that tax are finding the burden unacceptable, and after all who’s fucking money is it? Ask yourself this: given that the government spends more of the average kiwi’s income than he gets to spend himself do you think we’re getting good value for our money?

[davereid]

Are we back to "well then feck off to somewhere where there is no tax" already?


No, we are saying that using force to take goods and resources off people against their will is wrong.

Even if you are going to do really nice things with the money.


Instead of idealistically bleating on here about the evils of taxation, tell me what you would actually do to run a functioning society in it's absence.

The "idealistic bleat" is not coming from me. It comes from those who think that taxation makes the world a nicer place, and that "the ends justifies the means."

Actually, no one really believes it. Thats why we don't make tax optional. You know
a) "Tick here if you want to pay tax and make the world a better place"
b) "Tick here if you don't want to pay tax, and you are happy to choose the beneficiaries of your charity yourself "

We know that option b) would be far more popular !

Voting with YOUR OWN money always gets a different result to being generous with someone elses !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Swoop]

THis is compounded by our single house, where a party with a majority is a dictatorship. Anyone remember Muldoon?
Unfortunately so.
Back then, with the "first past the post" system, you had one form of dictatorship or the other. Not even a glimmer of hope for those in the 49% of voters.
Thank goodness that MMP makes the bastards get together to get enough ability to function.

[avgas]

If we had more people in parliament that had business sense we would be a lot better for it.
Yep - it surprises me how little real world credentials are required to apply as a politician. Very few go off the silver spoon diet before they go in.