Occupy Dunedin?

[Oscar]

Yep you miss the point. It is not about corporates that make our toys its about the corporates like the banks and financial institutions that rip us and our toy makers off whilst contributing very little.

That's a very shallow view.
To use Aprillia as an example, it's a product of the Piaggio Group in Italy.
Italy is one of the most corrupt first world economies, one that requires propping up by the very Banks you're complaining about.

[BoristheBiter]

To be fair, and maybe only in my eyes, the toy making corporates are in there too... just a lot further down the list, , than the banksters and the extreme money hoarders. For me the toy boys are pumping more gadgets out than they need to (e.g. a phone every year... wait 5 years then upgrade the masses with useful shit, not just some smart voice recognition feature, waste of resources etc...), but I guess that's what it takes to stay in business. But that's a whole other argument I guess.

To be fair all business are in it to make money, if not it's called a charity, but like you I'm sure they are more concerned with the "banksters and the extreme money hoarders" (like that phrase). But we go to work to make money (well some do but that's a different thread) or we wouldn't go, so there is no real difference just the scale of money concerned.

I would like to know what banks, if any, the protesters use.

[mashman]

To be fair all business are in it to make money, if not it's called a charity, but like you I'm sure they are more concerned with the "banksters and the extreme money hoarders" (like that phrase). But we go to work to make money (well some do but that's a different thread) or we wouldn't go, so there is no real difference just the scale of money concerned.

I would like to know what banks, if any, the protesters use.

heh, very true, especially the scale bit (but not the need for the different thread. We're talking money after all.), tis just a shame that all roads lead to the same place. Need money to start a business get a loan from the bank, own the business but need cash to expand get a loan from the bank, need money for a mortgage get a loan from the bank, you are a bank and need to get more money to lend get a loan from the next bank up the chain etc... The funny thing is, is that some banks somewhere further up the chain pluck money out of thin air. I'm still waiting for someone to disprove that FACT! And unfortunately that leads to money hoardering (successful people maybe and good on them given the way society works and values them), and unfortunately that means we need to go to work (to be able to afford essentials to survive, and THAT is well known by the 1% hence lower wages further down ) so that we can help in turning that profit that the company needs to store in the bank, only for the bank to class that as new money and to lend it out several times over to those who need money for whatever purpose.

It kinda flies in the face of a prosperous NZ. For example: A global computer consultancy sets up shop in NZ. We all scream hurrah as they're bringing jobs, which means more money coming into the NZ economy. Now the only reason, well not the only reason maybe, but as far as the board is concerned, the only reason to be in NZ is to turn a profit. Now that means there's more money going out of NZ than there is coming in. How can that be so? They have to pay the wages for the jobs they have created and still turn a profit, simple. Now the $64 million question is: How does NZ benefit from the consultancy setting up shop in NZ?

It's laughable that foreign companies receive tax incentives for providing jobs when they're taking more money out of the NZ economy than they're putting in... and yet for some unknown reason only a few people understand this simple concept. Perhaps that's a tad unfair, perhaps they just haven't thought about it.

Does it really matter what banks they use if all roads lead to the same place? Which they do... more commonly referred to as the 1% imho.

[Oscar]

It kinda flies in the face of a prosperous NZ. For example: A global computer consultancy sets up shop in NZ. We all scream hurrah as they're bringing jobs, which means more money coming into the NZ economy. Now the only reason, well not the only reason maybe, but as far as the board is concerned, the only reason to be in NZ is to turn a profit. Now that means there's more money going out of NZ than there is coming in. How can that be so? They have to pay the wages for the jobs they have created and still turn a profit, simple. Now the $64 million question is: How does NZ benefit from the consultancy setting up shop in NZ?

How much profit do they have to turn so that the net effect is money going off-shore?

As you say, it pays its staff.
Where is it housed?
It pays rent and/or rates.

It pays 15% GST on everything it buys in NZ even if it doesn't turn a profit.
If it does turn a profit, it pays company tax.

[mashman]

How much profit do they have to turn so that the net effect is money going off-shore?

As you say, it pays its staff.
Where is it housed?
It pays rent and/or rates.

It pays 15% GST on everything it buys in NZ even if it doesn't turn a profit.
If it does turn a profit, it pays company tax.

Dunno how much, but enough to pay the bills you're talking about and to make a profit... else why would they setup shop in a foreign country?

[Oscar]

Dunno how much, but enough to pay the bills you're talking about and to make a profit... else why would they setup shop in a foreign country?

Because they've reached the limit in their own country?

If they stimulate the local economy by paying wages and taxes, why do you care?
Do you have an example of a company that takes more out than it leaves here?
Do you realise how many of the enterprises is NZ are foreign owned?
Or in Australia for that matter?

Isn't it a little hypocritical for NZ to sell its products all over the world and then complain about foreign investment?

[oneofsix]

Dunno how much, but enough to pay the bills you're talking about and to make a profit... else why would they setup shop in a foreign country?

Did you somewhere say the money ever comes on shore? You scenario was a global computer consultancy setting up in NZ, sounds a bit like help desk in India, any way the money for wages, buildings, electricity etc has to flow into NZ but the profit could be being made by a company in the EU paying the US company for services that are provided out of NZ in which case no money flows out of NZ.

[BoristheBiter]

How much profit do they have to turn so that the net effect is money going off-shore?

As you say, it pays its staff.
Where is it housed?
It pays rent and/or rates.

It pays 15% GST on everything it buys in NZ even if it doesn't turn a profit.
If it does turn a profit, it pays company tax.

That's not entirely correct.

I contract to a company that runs at a lose here, because of such it gets rebates on tax and GST.
It sells its products at a low cost to its parent company in Aussie that then sells it for its true cost and makes a profit, but then because it props up the original company it gets that tax breaks in Aussie.

My company if my sales drop I get a GST rebate and pay no tax but I still get paid.

Its called creative accounting.

[mashman]

Because they've reached the limit in their own country?

If they stimulate the local economy by paying wages and taxes, why do you care?
Do you have an example of a company that takes more out than it leaves here?
Do you realise how many of the enterprises is NZ are foreign owned?
Or in Australia for that matter?

Isn't it a little hypocritical for NZ to sell its products all over the world and then complain about foreign investment?

Could be. Could be that they've identified a "skills" shortage here and have sprung to our rescue... but they come here to make money, not lose it don't they?

I don't overly care. I do find it funny that local man power is used to benefit overseas businesses under the guise of stimulating the economy where that very same business is probably pulling more out of the economy than it's putting in. If they're here to make money from the local population (which they usually are), then I would have thought the outputs would be greater than the inputs.

Nope, I don't have an example because I don't know for a fact (go on, have a rant on me)... although ANZ and their recent $1 billion profit would probably spring to mind. I doubt the whole $1 billion was sucked from NZ, but who knows?

Nope. How many are there?

Nope. How many are there?

Not overly, it's business .

Did you somewhere say the money ever comes on shore? You scenario was a global computer consultancy setting up in NZ, sounds a bit like help desk in India, any way the money for wages, buildings, electricity etc has to flow into NZ but the profit could be being made by a company in the EU paying the US company for services that are provided out of NZ in which case no money flows out of NZ.

No... but that's a bloody good question... and very true in regard to using NZ as a service... guess that leads to Oscars question above in regards to who owns NZ's enterprises. Although I would guess, only guess, that that service industry is miniscule as we're too expensive of a resource to pay for where you could get the same overseas much cheaper.

[Oscar]

That's not entirely correct.

I contract to a company that runs at a lose here, because of such it gets rebates on tax and GST.
It sells its products at a low cost to its parent company in Aussie that then sells it for its true cost and makes a profit, but then because it props up the original company it gets that tax breaks in Aussie.

My company if my sales drop I get a GST rebate and pay no tax but I still get paid.

Its called creative accounting.

Looks like tax evasion.

[Oscar]

Nope, I don't have an example because I don't know for a fact (go on, have a rant on me)... although ANZ and their recent $1 billion profit would probably spring to mind. I doubt the whole $1 billion was sucked from NZ, but who knows?

This is a good example of a figure being taken out of context (you could write Labour Party PR).
ANZ are the largest bank operating in NZ and have gross assets of in excess of $115billion, how much profit do you think they should earn?

[BoristheBiter]

Looks like tax evasion.

A book by any other name?

[Oscar]

A book by any other name?

No seriously - it looks like tax evasion.
Not tax avoidance, but tax evasion.

[BoristheBiter]

No seriously - it looks like tax evasion.
Not tax avoidance, but tax evasion.

It is but all legal.
All money's are accounted for and disclosed, and under the laws at the moment perfectly legal.

[Oscar]

It is but all legal.
All money's are accounted for and disclosed, and under the laws at the moment perfectly legal.

The IRD has a catch all test: if it was done for the sole purpose of reducing tax, it's illegal.
Ask any surgeon.