A thought on taxes.

[Clockwork]

If the Government were to stop levying tax on benefits but reduced each benefit by the amount of tax previously paid (so that the benificiary recieved no less cash income), could it not then reduce regular income tax on wages, creating a bigger differential between benefit and wage income and thereby increase the incentive to move from a benefit in to a job? :spudwhat:

Is there a flaw in this line of thought?

(assuming of course that the Government has the ability/intent to cut taxes)

[jrandom]

Oh, look, it's an efficient idea.

Forget about implementing it, then.

Just vote for ACT. "A Bullet For Every Beneficiary!"

[Marmoot]

(assuming of course that the Government has the ability/intent to cut taxes)

I believe this is the key element in the issue?

[Mr Skid]

If the Government were to stop levying tax on benefits but reduced each benefit by the amount of tax previously paid (so that the benificiary recieved no less cash income), could it not then reduce regular income tax on wages, creating a bigger differential between benefit and wage income and thereby increase the incentive to move from a benefit in to a job?

My brain just exploded.







Can we start discussing beer now?

[ajturbo]

i think that, in my view, the govt should think more about the solo dads and less about the solo mums!!
we should be allowed more insentives for us dad's that are/have to stay at home...
i would like to be at home for luke when he gets here after school, htere for the govt. should invest more dollars into the motor bike of my dreams, so that i will have the ability to get home quicker, when i go on the rides
just taking the piss

but if i work for more than 4-5hrs a week i loose part of my benifit... so why should i work....(should go to school with luke to learn how to spell)

[Oscar]

If the Government were to stop levying tax on benefits but reduced each benefit by the amount of tax previously paid (so that the benificiary recieved no less cash income), could it not then reduce regular income tax on wages, creating a bigger differential between benefit and wage income and thereby increase the incentive to move from a benefit in to a job? :spudwhat:

Is there a flaw in this line of thought?

(assuming of course that the Government has the ability/intent to cut taxes)

No.
FIrstly because the difference between the net incomes would either be unchanged or the beneficarys' income would drop. The Gummint also uses allowances (housing for example) to reduce the amount of tax paid on the benefit thereby increasing the net income recieved.

[bondagebunny]

you should go to work

"but if i work for more than 4-5hrs a week i loose part of my benifit... so why should i work"
__________________
Give us a good reason Why we should pay for you not to ya lazy sod.

too many tossers like you think that because there is a safety net for people in trouble - that if you get in to trouble you have a god given right to stay there. Get a bloody job you bludger.

[Biff]

Is there a flaw in this line of thought?

(assuming of course that the Government has the ability/intent to cut taxes)

I think you've answered the question yourself. All nations needs to generate revenue. The amount of revenue that's generated should be set by the government based on what's really needed, and no more. If a government believes that they need to generate revenue, they hike up tax levels but they should be just as quick to lower them when there's a glut of money in the governments coffers (other than emergency funds that is).

Governments the world over are famous for promising to reduce interest rates just before (if they're in power) or as soon as they are voted into power. Just look at the mess the US is in at the moment thanks to the Bush administrations promises. They gave billions back to the public following his successful first term election, even though the government needed it in order to balance the next 12 months balance sheets. Taxation should be governed by an independent non-governmental organisation, divorced from political pressures and meddling.

Your opening remark re' halting taxation on benefits makes perfect sense to me. The 'give with one hand and take with the other' philosophy applied to state benefits is bonkers. I'd love to know why this is done. Other than keeping some IR people in jobs that is.

[Jackrat]

I know a woman that receives $500 pw from the state because she's a solo mum, plus she uses her mothers tax code to work an makes another $450 pw.
I want to know how to give this bitch up without anybody knowing it was me that done it. :spudwhat:

[Hitcher]

If the Government were to stop levying tax on benefits but reduced each benefit by the amount of tax previously paid (so that the benificiary recieved no less cash income), could it not then reduce regular income tax on wages, creating a bigger differential between benefit and wage income and thereby increase the incentive to move from a benefit in to a job?

Is there a flaw in this line of thought?

There is at least one flaw. One is that beneficiaries don't pay tax. The benefits they receive have been taxed before they get lodged in their account. So to reduce this sum you have to cut their benefit. The political backlash from such an act would surely test the resolve of any government.

[Hitcher]

I know a woman that receives $500 pw from the state because she's a solo mum, plus she uses her mothers tax code to work an makes another $450 pw.
I want to know how to give this bitch up without anybody knowing it was me that done it.

Just ring IRD. They will be more interested in her details than yours...

[Oscar]

There is at least one flaw. One is that beneficiaries don't pay tax. The benefits they receive have been taxed before they get lodged in their account. So to reduce this sum you have to cut their benefit. The political backlash from such an act would surely test the resolve of any government.

That is somewhat disingenuous. I pay taxes, even though my employer removes them before I see what’s left – I still pay the feckin’ things…

Beneficiaries pay taxes in exactly the same fashion. It seems a ridicoulas thing to do, but it gives the Gummint another option when it comes to regulating income.

[spudchucka]

I know a woman that receives $500 pw from the state because she's a solo mum, plus she uses her mothers tax code to work an makes another $450 pw.
I want to know how to give this bitch up without anybody knowing it was me that done it. :spudwhat:

I know a family that accounts for around $13,000 per week. About four or five generations of dole bludgers. I don't hesitate to use that term because not one of then has every tried to hold a job. They have taught their kids to be criminals and to bludge off the state, its their way of life.

[Hitcher]

That is somewhat disingenuous. I pay taxes, even though my employer removes them before I see what’s left – I still pay the feckin’ things…

It's not disingenuous, it's a reality. Beneficiaries' benefits are taxed but the beneficiary doesn't "pay" these. Similarly you don't "pay" taxes either -- to do this would require you to write out a cheque to IRD. If people had to "pay" their taxes they would take a much closer interest in on what they were spent...

[SPman]

We all know about the bludgers who work the system,but, for every one I know of that does, there are twenty that dont.Most of them would rather have a job and or decent income and most hate being hooked into WINZ, but they often have no option. Most I know cant wait for their circumstances to change to make the break!
Shame its always the bottom 5% that get touted around as examples and dragged out whenever its beneficiary bashing time!