I've had enough!

[swbarnett]

you know how tax dodging works, right? you know that would only work for honest men, and that fuckall of them wear suits.

So instead of a system that, when working as designed, takes money from all equally based on income you'd rather have a system that hurts the poor more than the rich by design?

What we actually need is a government that isn't solely in power for the benefit of John Key's rich mates. Then maybe they'd figure out a system that fixed all the tax dodge loopholes that currently exist.

[Akzle]

So instead of a system that, when working as designed, takes money from all equally based on income you'd rather have a system that hurts the poor more than the rich by design?

What we actually need is a government that isn't solely in power for the benefit of John Key's rich mates. Then maybe they'd figure out a system that fixed all the tax dodge loopholes that currently exist.

jeez. by bong's not even warm, but here goes:

if the system worked as (you purport is) intended, we wouldn't be having this discussion. if it ever had, we wouldn't be here. if it was ever going to, i wouldn't entertain this discussion.

someone else said it ahead of me: "everyone is cheating the system/ fiddling the books/ out to get the best for themselves, against a system they perceive to be unfair/unjust/costs too much/why bother paying it.
so, is the fucked system the symptom of the behavior? or the behavior symptomatic of a fucked system?
do you believe it's possible to even have a system that works? presumably it doesn't rely on consent, and would be forced on everyone equally? and what do you propose to do about the rabble who refuse to participate, what do you propose to do about the john keys playing jew games and not contributing "their fair share"? and what about them who cannot contribute... say bed ridden, or in a wheelchair, you account for them?

tax dodge loopholes? offshore bank accounts, blind trusts, minimisation accounting, undeclared earnings. these are the trappings of the wealthy. it's not joe blow benny boy on the take.
maybe the upper middle class too, but certainly noone in (relative?) poverty is diverting large amounts of funds away from the taxman.

and again, you've ignored the accounting for those who are not "earning income"


what i would rather is a system that gives, rather than takes. being that, in the natural state of things, god (gaia, jah etc) gives all that you need to live. if a system wishes to interpose on that relationship, they should at least match the offering, if not better it.

the problem, is cunts. outlaw cuntery, on pain of death, and things would change, for the better, in short order. cuntery doesn't discriminate, rich or poor, class, position, employment.... yes. eliminate cuntery.

[Akzle]

A, you are fucking ignorant.
B, but not a bad retort for a stoner living in a fantasy world

a) you've been waiting a while to bounce that one back at me. feel better now?
b) pretty poor retort, even for a bald old guy living in in someone else's fantasy world.

[swbarnett]

if the system worked as (you purport is) intended, we wouldn't be having this discussion. if it ever had, we wouldn't be here. if it was ever going to, i wouldn't entertain this discussion.

Agreed.

someone else said it ahead of me: "everyone is cheating the system/ fiddling the books/ out to get the best for themselves, against a system they perceive to be unfair/unjust/costs too much/why bother
paying it.

Maybe that's why I feel knocked down by our financial system. I'm probably one of the few that isn't fiddling the system.

so, is the fucked system the symptom of the behavior? or the behavior symptomatic of a fucked system?

Both I would say. Probably a bit of a chicken and egg scenario.

do you believe it's possible to even have a system that works?

Yes and no. The system that works is one that gets all but a few on board wanting it to work.

eliminate cuntery.

I think this sums up the situation perfectly. Get rid of this and all will be rosey. As has been said many times before - if we could all just get along and stop just looking after number 1 things would fall nicely in to place.

[Akzle]

Maybe that's why I feel knocked down by our financial system. I'm probably one of the few that isn't fiddling the system.

if we could all just get along and stop just looking after number 1 things would fall nicely in to place.

1)does that help you sleep at night?
If not, give diddling a go. All the cool kids are doing it.

2) thats exactly my proposition, but i dont ever see it happening while the monetary farce exists. And i certainly dont see it while the faux power structure holds old men to their misguided beliefs.

3) and your insistence that "what we need is a government who isnt..."
Youre looking to someone else to sort the (your) problems. History clearly demonstrates that governance doesnt help you. Ever.
Enter the bleeding heart "for the greater good" brigade. (ocean, again)
(stage left is apparent right, it all depends whether youre acting, or just here to watch the show. Eh oceay?)

[Voltaire]

1)does that help you sleep at night?
If not, give diddling a go. All the cool kids are doing it.

2) thats exactly my proposition, but i dont ever see it happening while the monetary farce exists. And i certainly dont see it while the faux power structure holds old men to their misguided beliefs.

3) and your insistence that "what we need is a government who isnt..."
Youre looking to someone else to sort the (your) problems. History clearly demonstrates that governance doesnt help you. Ever.
Enter the bleeding heart "for the greater good" brigade. (ocean, again)
(stage left is apparent right, it all depends whether youre acting, or just here to watch the show. Eh oceay?)

[swbarnett]

1)does that help you sleep at night?

Yeah, it does. But I still feel the system is not serving me (or anyone else) well.

2) thats exactly my proposition, but i dont ever see it happening while the monetary farce exists. And i certainly dont see it while the faux power structure holds old men to their misguided beliefs.

I think you may be right. I'm increasingly of the opinion that some kind of Star Trek style moneyless system may be our only hope long term. How we get there I have no idea.

3) and your insistence that "what we need is a government who isnt..."
Youre looking to someone else to sort the (your) problems.

Actually no. I don't think just about myself like it seems a lot of people do. I'm looking for someone to sort out the problems of society as a whole. If it becomes clear that this is happening I'll be more than willing to do my part to make it work.

History clearly demonstrates that governance doesnt help you. Ever.

Power corrupts and all that. Or, to put it another way:

The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

[Woodman]

At least income tax is higher for those that are more able to pay.

Thats discriminatory against people that earn more.

Maybe when you go into a dairy to buy an icecream you should be means tested to determine the cost of the icecream? Same thing as taxing someone a higher percentage because they earn more really.

[Big Dog]

Thats discriminatory against people that earn more.

Maybe when you go into a dairy to buy an icecream you should be means tested to determine the cost of the icecream? Same thing as taxing someone a higher percentage because they earn more really.

To reiterate your analogy in full, those with a high income would bring a lawyer and an accountant. They would pay nothing for the icecream because they would receive compensation for the costs of collection and any background research on flavour, and a further discount for buying a sausage at the mitre-10 sausage sizzle fundraiser for kidscan if it was not as good a year as previous years the dairy owner would pay them to take the icecream, the dairy owner would pay a portion of the accountants time and be liable for the cost of the lawyer if used. Meanwhile the low income earner would pay for his icecream and leave with a smile on his face. That he stuck it to the man because he paid x% less than the dickhead in the suit.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Ocean1]

To reiterate your analogy in full, those with a high income would bring a lawyer and an accountant. They would pay nothing for the icecream because they would receive compensation for the costs of collection and any background research on flavour, and a further discount for buying a sausage at the mitre-10 sausage sizzle fundraiser for kidscan if it was not as good a year as previous years the dairy owner would pay them to take the icecream, the dairy owner would pay a portion of the accountants time and be liable for the cost of the lawyer if used. Meanwhile the low income earner would pay for his icecream and leave with a smile on his face. That he stuck it to the man because he paid x% less than the dickhead in the suit.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Lets just gloss over the fact that none of that has any connection to any reasoning behind differential pricing and ask who it was that you noticed behaving like that? Or did you just make it up? It certainly bears no resemblance to the behaviour or reasoning of any wealthy people I've ever met.

[swbarnett]

Thats discriminatory against people that earn more.

When I say higher I mean proportionately. The more you earn, the more tax you pay. Nothing discriminatory about that?

Yes, the current system does have different tax rates and, yes, the more you earn, the more you pay per dollar. But only to a certain point.

Those that advocate GST over income tax should consider this - do you want people that skip meals so that their kids can eat or people that perhaps will only by 10 investment properties this year instead of 11?

Maybe when you go into a dairy to buy an icecream you should be means tested to determine the cost of the icecream? Same thing as taxing someone a higher percentage because they earn more really

Replace that icecream with "a proportion of the government health budget", for example, and I would say, yes.

I used to think like you. I believed wholeheartedly in "earn a dollar and pay a dollars worth of tax". Be that $1 or $10 million. However, all that achieves is to make the almighty dollar the main reason that most people do the job they do. If there was no point earning past a certain level because most of that extra dollar went to the government then the prime motivation will move from money to "what floats your boat". In other words, if what you do doesn't have the affect on your income that it does now then more people will be doing that which gives their life meaning.

[Big Dog]

Lets just gloss over the fact that none of that has any connection to any reasoning behind differential pricing and ask who it was that you noticed behaving like that? Or did you just make it up? It certainly bears no resemblance to the behaviour or reasoning of any wealthy people I've ever met.

There you go then. I misunderstood the premise of the previous caller. I thought they were describing income tax.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Winston001]

Maybe that's what it has become but it should have never been allowed to. ACC is of benefit to all so all should pay what they can. The only was to do this fairly is out of income tax.

I still maintain that ACC is not, in principle, an insurance scheme. Even if that is what it's been bastardised into. Any changes to ACC funding need to move it toward what it is supposed to be.

I certainly understand where you are coming from but think about it this way:

We pay tax from our wages and that tax money supports people who are sick or out of work. A person earning $600/wk goes down to $200/wk on the unemployment benefit. They do not receive $600/wk on the dole.

If that person has private sickness/redundancy insurance (which is quite common with HP/finance) they will get $600/wk for up to a year, but no longer.

If this same person has a serious accident on the weekend (not working) ACC will pay them $480/wk...for years. If they die the family will be paid that sum until the children have left home. I know two families where this has helped immensely.

Big difference between taxpayer funded and insurance funded - which is ACC.

[swbarnett]

I certainly understand where you are coming from but think about it this way:

We pay tax from our wages and that tax money supports people who are sick or out of work. A person earning $600/wk goes down to $200/wk on the unemployment benefit. They do not receive $600/wk on the dole.

If that person has private sickness/redundancy insurance (which is quite common with HP/finance) they will get $600/wk for up to a year, but no longer.

If this same person has a serious accident on the weekend (not working) ACC will pay them $480/wk...for years. If they die the family will be paid that sum until the children have left home. I know two families where this has helped immensely.

Big difference between taxpayer funded and insurance funded - which is ACC.

I think I see what you're getting at. You're equating ACC to private sickness/redundancy insurance, yes?

In that case, I think you're right that ACC is like insurance in that it pays out larger benefits than things like the DOL. However, what I'm trying to get at is that ACC is unlike insurance in that it is not based on a risk assessment of the individual. Therefore ACC levies should not be apportioned based on risk but based on ability to pay. The simplest (as in lowest admin cost) way to do this is through income tax.

[Ocean1]

I think I see what you're getting at. You're equating ACC to private sickness/redundancy insurance, yes?

In that case, I think you're right that ACC is like insurance in that it pays out larger benefits than things like the DOL. However, what I'm trying to get at is that ACC is unlike insurance in that it is not based on a risk assessment of the individual. Therefore ACC levies should not be apportioned based on risk but based on ability to pay. The simplest (as in lowest admin cost) way to do this is through income tax.

Firstly, company levies and road user levies are indeed risk based. Only individual income levies are based on income alone.

Secondly, those with a higher "ability to pay" have already paid an exponentially higher tax on their income, why should they have to pay more again?