Who will win the 2011 election?

[SPman]

Nah...Labour ain't got a clue about anything at the moment....

agree with you there, although some of them are trying to get through....

and high income earners are better, smarter, work harder and contribite far more to this country that fucking whinging dumb labour voters/bludgers/idiot/union fools. -

Better? Smarter ...work harder not necessarily - I know some fucking hard workers who earn SFA, and high earners who know how to tweak figures, but wouldn't know the meaning of the phrase!

The top 10% of incomer earners pay 75% of the tax....

And where do you get these figures from? - they are often bandied about but seem to have their origin in urban myth, like a lot of this stuff - source and proof, please.

so why scare them oversea's????

This IS a myth that people like to fling around, which has been definitively debunked! The very wealthy go overseas if they feel like it, not because a tax rate has gone up or they feel hard done by by some financial law change or whatever - and if they want to go, rather than contribute positively to the community and society, well, they know where the airport is!
It's usually those on lower and middle incomes that go.

[Ocean1]

And where do you get these figures from? - they are often bandied about but seem to have their origin in urban myth, like a lot of this stuff - source and proof, please.

Attributed to:

The top 10 percent of income earners pay 44 percent of all personal income tax. If the impact of Working for Families, New Zealand superannuation, and other benefits is included, the top 10 percent of taxpayers in New Zealand pay 76 percent of all net tax in New Zealand.

Which appears to be unavailable on line. Haven't heard anyone dispute it, though.

Edit: even way scarier is the fact that 55% of wage earners cost more in benefits than they pay in tax. They represent a net loss to the system. You can research that one yourself.

[Oscar]

Attributed to:



Which appears to be unavailable on line. Haven't heard anyone dispute it, though.

Edit: even way scarier is the fact that 55% of wage earners cost more in benefits than they pay in tax. They represent a net loss to the system. You can research that one yourself.

It's here:

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/cagtr...rt-website.pdf

This is also interesting:

In contrast with the treatment of capital gains and property, New Zealand taxes corporate taxable income
at a relatively high rate. The changing international environment is putting pressure on the corporate tax
system. In 1989, New Zealand’s 33% corporate tax rate was one of the lowest in the world. That situation
has changed markedly in the last 15 years (see Figure 8). While New Zealand’s corporate rate was
reduced recently to 30%, the average rate for small OECD countries is now 26%. International trends
may not continue into the future at the same rate (for example, as a result of many countries experiencing
huge increases in public deficits and debt following the global financial crisis). However, further reductions
in company tax rates overseas will mean that New Zealand would be vulnerable and would be under
pressure to reduce its company tax rate.

[cowpoos]

Oh dear, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. I said that people on low incomes pay more GST as a proportion of their income. Statistically a typical person on $50k will spend around 60% of their income on living costs like food, petrol, power, phone, clothes and entertainmen, all of which attract GST.

However someone on $150,000 you will typically spend a greater dollar amount on all of the above, but because mortgages and savings are GST exempt between 40% and 50% of their income will attract GST.



So what you're saying is the only way to contribute to society is through paying tax? Then why do you hate paying tax? Do you hate contributing to the society you live in?



Then why have the number of people emigrating increased since National came in? And why do Labour and the Greens always do better out of special votes cast by expat Kiwis? And what are envy taxes and nanny state rhetoric? Has it dawned on you that the reason smart people emigrate (often to countries with higher tax rates) is because there are more opportunities overseas? Or are you simply spouting what you have been told?



Those aren't facts - they're your paranoid prejudices. Facts are things that are known to exist and can be independently observed, measured and experienced.



Like you?

Blah blah blah labour rhetoric bla blah....why don't you answer the real points I posed...

agree with you there, although some of them are trying to get through....

Better? Smarter ...work harder not necessarily - I know some fucking hard workers who earn SFA, and high earners who know how to tweak figures, but wouldn't know the meaning of the phrase!


And where do you get these figures from? - they are often bandied about but seem to have their origin in urban myth, like a lot of this stuff - source and proof, please. This IS a myth that people like to fling around, which has been definitively debunked! The very wealthy go overseas if they feel like it, not because a tax rate has gone up or they feel hard done by by some financial law change or whatever - and if they want to go, rather than contribute positively to the community and society, well, they know where the airport is!
It's usually those on lower and middle incomes that go.

I like you Spman....how ever...you and I will never agree on this issuse...so out of respect I'm not going to Debate with you...

Not exactly, GST affected low income earners far more than high income earners because they pay a far bigger percentage of their income in GST.



Did you know that a far greater percentage of unversity grads around vote labour than National? And that the average university grad earns 25% more than a non-graduate? I'm also amused that the national/act supporters on this thread are the ones who whinge the most? By a long shot. And what do you have to support your argument that people who vote Labour support NZ less than people who vote National/Act?

Do you have a basis for your assertions, or is it just what Wayne down at the pub told you? After all, he has a grouse ute and hot missus, so you gotta listen to him.

right....because your a bit dumb....heres an explaination that even youshould understand

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, labour twits and college professors like shrub, 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.

[Clockwork]

It's here:

This is also interesting:....

More fool us for buying into the "global economy" bullshit then eh?

So corperations are now free to move their buiness to the country with the lowest tax rates yet we still allow them free access to our markets (even though in NZ's particular case we are not allowed to buy at the same price that the rest of the world pays).

No wonder corperate tax rates are declining world wide..... guess who gets to pick up the slack!!!

[shrub]

Blah blah blah labour rhetoric bla blah....why don't you answer the real points I posed...

Actually I did. I countered every argument you raised, but unfortunately for you I didn't give the answer you wanted (or understood) and...

I like you Spman....how ever...you and I will never agree on this issuse...so out of respect I'm not going to Debate with you...

you admit are only willing to debate with people you agree with which probably explains why you are so naive and ill informed - the perfect muppet.

[shrub]

More fool us for buying into the "global economy" bullshit then eh?

So corperations are now free to move their buiness to the country with the lowest tax rates yet we still allow them free access to our markets (even though in NZ's particular case we are not allowed to buy at the same price that the rest of the world pays).

No wonder corperate tax rates are declining world wide..... guess who gets to pick up the slack!!!

Globalisation is a two edged sword. It has opened markets that were once inaccessible and created opportunities, but at the same time competition has increased monumentally. Because NZ is so small (we have a similar GDP to General Motors and are smaller than General Electric) we are extremely vulnerable. I believe that the only option to NZ surviving and growing economically is to become a niche operator producing extremely high quality and innovative products. We HAVE to diversify from primary produce and volume tourism, especially from dairy. We also need to reassess the RB Act, but that's another story.

i think that our tax structure needs to change, and a CGT is not just a good idea, it's bizarre that we don't have one. Company tax rates are probably too high, and I have read strong arguments to shift them down to 25% and to follow the model used a lot overseas of allowing a company's first year's trading to be tax free (with conditions). Personal tax rates need reassessing and the lovely tax cuts we have all enjoyed were probably unaffordable, even if they did get votes. But my expertise lies in business growth not taxation, and I'm not an economist so what I think is entirely based on what I have read in the public commons so is likely to be incomplete at best.

[oldrider]

Title of this thread is: Who will win the 2011 election?

Shrub and the Labour party should just start their own official thread!

[shrub]

Title of this thread is: Who will win the 2011 election?

Shrub and the Labour party should just start their own official thread!

Would you rather I followed the crowd and whined about paying tax while agreeing that Labour supporters are all homos, beneficiaries and losers and anyone who has an education is an idiot? Mate, if you disagree with me put forward an argument, don't just wish I would go away. BTW I am not a Labour supporter, but I also don't think National are doing a very good job. And their policies range from ordinary to poor, but John Key has a lovely smile and is SUCH a nice man, so the sheeple will vote them back.

I reckon the only way National won't win this year is if John Key and Bill English are caught starring in a gay porn film made in a P lab that they are found to own while channelling millions of dollars into funding the Wallaby's RWC campaign. Even then it would be close.

[oneofsix]

It must really suck having me on the other side of the debating table - would you rather I shut up and let everyone complain about tax rates and agree that Labour supporters are all homos, beneficiaries and losers? BTW I am not a Labour supporter, but I also don't think National are doing a very good job.

I reckon the only way National won't win this year is if John Key, Jerry Brownlee and Bill English are caught starring in a gay porn film made in a P lab that they are found to own while channelling millions of dollars into funding the Wallaby's RWC campaign. Even then it would be close.

It would have been a very short thread if everyone stuck strictly to the subject in the title.

[admenk]

It would have been a very short thread if everyone stuck strictly to the subject in the title.

National.....there, managed it

[oldrider]

Would you rather I followed the crowd and whined about paying tax while agreeing that Labour supporters are all homos, beneficiaries and losers and anyone who has an education is an idiot? Mate, if you disagree with me put forward an argument, don't just wish I would go away. BTW I am not a Labour supporter, but I also don't think National are doing a very good job. And their policies range from ordinary to poor, but John Key has a lovely smile and is SUCH a nice man, so the sheeple will vote them back.

I reckon the only way National won't win this year is if John Key and Bill English are caught starring in a gay porn film made in a P lab that they are found to own while channelling millions of dollars into funding the Wallaby's RWC campaign. Even then it would be close.

My post means this thread is dead, it's time to start a new one, more on topic!

Your comments reflect the poll results on this thread too!

I am not sure that that will be the result of the election though, the media have yet to do their work!

Possibly the RWC will be too big a distraction so I guess it all depends on whether we win or lose!

Even more so, if we don't win, who does! .... pretty fickle country, definitely politically inept electorate!

[mashman]

Even more so, if we don't win, who does! .... pretty fickle country, definitely politically inept electorate!

Alas, it will be more of the same. As for politically inept. I agree, and inept we should be. Otherwise what would be the point of politicians?

The way I look at it, no matter who wins the election, the goal will still be to "balance the books". Every society will "suffer" where budget is a consideration. Proven since ages ago .

[Oscar]

Alas, it will be more of the same. As for politically inept. I agree, and inept we should be. Otherwise what would be the point of politicians?

The way I look at it, no matter who wins the election, the goal will still be to "balance the books". Every society will "suffer" where budget is a consideration. Proven since ages ago .

Oh look the children have entered the room.
Isn't it past your beddy-byes?

[mashman]

Oh look the children have entered the room.
Isn't it past your beddy-byes?

?????????????????????