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

[MisterD]

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]

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]

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

[Brian d marge]

I think this says it all

Carry on, This is what doing nothing gets ya

Great job

Stephen

[shrub]

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]

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]

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]

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/M...a/F4/Index.htm

[shrub]

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/M...a/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]

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.

Pretty much exactly right, no real net change to anyone, just a whole lot of hot air about nothing. What was the OP all about then?

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.

[shrub]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.