Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[Ocean1]

And that's why I believe the problem isn't that some people are getting paid 10 times more than someone else, the problem lies with the people who earn large incomes that seem to think that it gives them a greater right to influence the progress of humanity.

Your repeated cries of "shut the fuck up" suggest you are one those people.

And as I said, when you're paying their wages then you can direct their influence on humanity as you see fit.

In the meantime as you're not paying me fuck all I'm not interested in your beliefs or your suggestions.

[Katman]

In the meantime as you're not paying me fuck all I'm not interested in your beliefs or your suggestions.

Snap!

[Brian d marge]

That's income. Which has fuck all to do with consumption.

You can't actually answer my question, because nobody collects that data. Doesn't that seem a little strange? After all it's so terribly fashionable to bleat about income inequality, and yet it's the money individuals spend that defines how well off they are, not the money they earn.

So why do all of the metrics defining poverty and inequity focus on income, a value most closely linked to productive performance, and having nothing whatsoever to do with social "justice"?

Someone did collect those numbers. Once. They're here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/net_taxpayers.html

On that first chart.

Along wit a few other rarely seen facts:

"Now let us look at the households with income of over $150,000. We don’t know if this is one person earning say $150,000 or two people earning say $80,000 each but we do know it includes be definition everyone earning at least $150,000. Household income is used as welfare payments are normally made on a household basis.

So 10% of households have an income of $150,000 or greater. And those 10% fund 71% of net taxation. And these are the households that Labour are saying are not doing their fair share and must pay more.

If we go slightly further down to households with an income of $120,000 or greater – which is 17% of households. Well those 17% of households are paying 97% of net taxation.

Yet Labour seems to think this is not enough. Their tax policy (I don’t mean CGT, but their income tax policy) is that 97% is not enough. Those rich pricks have to be screwed over until they are paying over 100% of net taxation."


So next time you bleat about those rich pricks just pause for a minute and remember who's paying for your free lunch.

If you add up all the others they pay roughly the same as the rich ( 150000+) Sooooo,,,there are a few rich paying their fair share , AD Shitloads of poorer people doing the same
hmmm it looks good ....but ...needs thinking about

Stephen

[Ocean1]

If you add up all the others they pay roughly the same as the rich ( 150000+) Sooooo,,,there are a few rich paying their fair share , AD Shitloads of poorer people doing the same
hmmm it looks good ....but ...needs thinking about

Stephen

Sorry? Have you been adding the net tax deficits in there?

Look again, housholds earning >$150k (9.9% of all housholds) pay 70.7% of the total tax take.

Those earning from about $55k down are into negative tax.

[Brian d marge]

Sorry? Have you been adding the net tax deficits in there?

Look again, housholds earning >$150k (9.9% of all housholds) pay 70.7% of the total tax take.

Those earning from about $55k down are into negative tax.

Im getting there ..hang on

but just to give you a sneak preview ....

Snip"

When I did the correct calculations for National in 2011 - accounting for GST - I found that the top ~10% of households actually pay around 43% of the total net tax on individuals. They also earn around 30% of the income and have over 50% of the wealth.

Ill try and find the figures ....

Stephen

[Ocean1]

Someone did collect those numbers. Once. They're here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/net_taxpayers.html

Ill try and find the figures ....

Stephen

They're here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content...nettaxpaid.png




Deaf cunt.

[Brian d marge]

They're here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content...nettaxpaid.png




Deaf cunt.

hahahahahaaaaaa very funny ,,,,,

I thought they were

HERE.....

http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/tax-...s-for-a-change


Stephen

[Ocean1]

hahahahahaaaaaa very funny ,,,,,

I thought they were

HERE.....

http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/tax-...s-for-a-change


Stephen

Meh. The chart splits groups by income - benefits. Net tax. The opposition reckon that's not a true reflection of tax paid. That's right, so what? The objective was to highlight groups by net tax, because that's the real world.

[Brian d marge]

Tin hats are much more fun


Qabalah baby Qabalah !





Now we are back on track

let the debate continue

Stephen

There are 7 letters in my name.
Those 7 letters total to 33
There are 2 vowels and 5 consonants in my name.

What my first name means:

Shakespearean	Male	'King Richard The Second' Sir Stephen Scroop.
Greek	Male	Crown; victorious.
English	Male	Crown; wreath. In the bible Stephen was the first Christian martyr.
Biblical	Male	Crown; crowned

my number is: 6



6.............. not seven not five but 6.......

[oldrider]

Not so unique: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Ca...CcWN8QfPuoD4CA casting nines and numerical digital sums are old school checking systems.

[Ocean1]

Not so unique: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Ca...CcWN8QfPuoD4CA casting nines and numerical digital sums are old school checking systems.

Man that brought back a few memories, I wouldn't have used that for well over 40 years.

I remember being fascinated at how it worked and I don' think I ever really understood.

[oldrider]

Man that brought back a few memories, I wouldn't have used that for well over 40 years.

I remember being fascinated at how it worked and I don' think I ever really understood.

Ditto! ... There was also a Professor Trachtenberg who developed some interestingly tricky mathematics systems too. (during captivity WW2)

Have a look here: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Tr...x-a&channel=np