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

[wbks]

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

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

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

The fact that people on the dole get more cash than the working class is a matter of bad management. You're right, people on the dole shouldn't get more disposable income than those who contribute.

We, as a country, provide free access to education. We provide a lot of services that empowers people to take themselves off the "poor" line and taking responsibility for their own lives.

Funnily enough, these "services that empowers people" are considered socialist. Still thinking of Socialists like lepers?

They don't need to government to take care of them.

As we see in government less states in Africa...

They need to step up and understand that changes to their position relative to the average income will not happen overnight. They will need to dedicate time and effort to making that change and it might not happen in their lifetime. But their children might have a better future. I know. My family went through that over the last three generations. It is the hard work of my forebears that got me to where I am today. And, with my hard work, my daughters will have a better position in life than I had. Hopefully they'll carry that on for their children. And in a few generations we might be "wealthy" too.
Unfortunately socialism takes that away from people. You keep on giving them something for nothing. Eventually they just stop doing anything for themselves, because the poor deluded fools in their "generosity" with other people's money have killed any incentive for them to do anything.

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

[wbks]

Anarchism in it's purest form, would be the ideal..everyone doing what they want but still doing their bit to help the community - unfortunately, like all other theoretical systems, communism, capitolism, every other -ism, it gets fucked up by those with giant ego's who want everything to work for them, and fuck everyone else!

Exactly. A system which reduces governmental power (lets face it, doing without it while still prospering would be a dream... and that's all) but everyone still contributes... Libertarian Socialism comes to mind

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

Yea, just as Capitalism was a roaring success for any country that ever was ruled by a genocidal dictator... Subtle hint

[Miscreant]

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

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

[Pascal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Coldrider]

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

A good one liner on tax liability.

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

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

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

Best part of the IR313 is that is is free.

Note again does not have to be a business.

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

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

[Mully]

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

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

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

[Coldrider]

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

Dear Bush Client.

You can't afford my charge out rate.

Kindest regards

[Clockwork]

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

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


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

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

[Pascal]

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

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

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

[Clockwork]

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

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

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

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

[mashman]

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

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

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

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

Well thanks for giving me the choice...

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

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

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

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

[mashman]

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

how many millions of people did they have to "control"? How long ago was that? Because it hasn't worked on a grand scale, that's reason to not try it on a smalller scale? But i'm still not sure myself either.

[Swoop]

how many millions of people did they have to "control"? How long ago was that? Because it hasn't worked on a grand scale, that's reason to not try it on a smalller scale? But i'm still not sure myself either.

The irony train has left the station.