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

**mashman** · 18th May 2010, 13:03

Originally Posted by Pixie

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

Originally Posted by scott411

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

Originally Posted by Tank

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

**SPman** · 18th May 2010, 13:18

Originally Posted by aprilia_RS250

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.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...lls-on-workers

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!

**MisterD** · 18th May 2010, 13:25

Originally Posted by SPman

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!

It has? That'll be why private schools have such bad reputations then...

**rainman** · 18th May 2010, 13:57

Originally Posted by Tank

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.

Originally Posted by Tank

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.

Originally Posted by Tank

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

Originally Posted by rainman

. 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

Originally Posted by Tank

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

Originally Posted by mashman

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

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!

**Gezza** · 18th May 2010, 19:18

Bloody well said shrub

**Smifffy** · 18th May 2010, 19:54

Originally Posted by rainman

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

Originally Posted by SPman

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!

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.

**mashman** · 18th May 2010, 20:23

Originally Posted by aprilia_RS250

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?

)

... 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