GST going up, Personal and company tax going down, CGT in investment property

[Swoop]

If the gubbinment wishes to raise a bit more cash, start taxing the bloody religious corporations! Why the fuck are the "imaginary friends" a tax-free status??!

If you think any Government anywhere will promote tax change that actually makes voters better off you're all barking mad. They'll tell you you're better off and you'll be left wondering why you're struggling a little bit harder than you were before.

As the saying goes: "You can always tell when a politician is lying... their lips move!".

[steve_t]

If the gubbinment wishes to raise a bit more cash, start taxing the bloody religious corporations! Why the fuck are the "imaginary friends" a tax-free status??!

But then how would Bishop Brian Tamaki afford his multimillion dollar home and massive yacht with the "modest" income he takes from the church? I guess tithing is basically a tax for the religious so why should the government miss out on a cut of someone charging a tax?

[Winston001]

This discussion is looking at the wrong end IMHO. As a nation we focus on what the Government should do for us rather than what we can do for each other (to mangle JFK’s quote).

Wages and salaries are only possible if something is produced – and purchased - by someone else. To earn more money, more of the product must be produced. The average Australian worker produces ¼ more than a New Zealand worker. Interestingly Australian wages – and their exchange rate, are approximately 25% higher.

So we need to look at what we sell to the rest of the world and produce more of it per person. Tax rates become less interesting if you earn plenty each week.

[Winston001]

fair enough... but more and more i'm finding it hard to believe that virtual money doesn't exist (as backwards as that sounds)... otherwise how does it have such a dramatic effect on businesses and peoples livelyhoods (the money hasn't gone if it wasn't there)?

Quite right. It does exist in the sense that we all use it. Money is a measure of value. Your house has a value, so you borrow some money from the bank to buy a new bike. What if everyone in your town suddenly lost their jobs and had to sell their houses? What would yours be worth? Where did its "value" go?

The result is everyone becomes poorer.

[McJim]

This discussion is looking at the wrong end IMHO. As a nation we focus on what the Government should do for us rather than what we can do for each other (to mangle JFK’s quote).

Wages and salaries are only possible if something is produced – and purchased - by someone else. To earn more money, more of the product must be produced. The average Australian worker produces ¼ more than a New Zealand worker. Interestingly Australian wages – and their exchange rate, are approximately 25% higher.

So we need to look at what we sell to the rest of the world and produce more of it per person. Tax rates become less interesting if you earn plenty each week.

Quite right. It does exist in the sense that we all use it. Money is a measure of value. Your house has a value, so you borrow some money from the bank to buy a new bike. What if everyone in your town suddenly lost their jobs and had to sell their houses? What would yours be worth? Where did its "value" go?

The result is everyone becomes poorer.

Winston, you're making too much sense. Exactly how hard did you hit your head when you came off that bike of yours?

[JimO]

Quite right. It does exist in the sense that we all use it. Money is a measure of value. Your house has a value, so you borrow some money from the bank to buy a new bike. What if everyone in your town suddenly lost their jobs and had to sell their houses? What would yours be worth? Where did its "value" go?

The result is everyone becomes poorer.

but you still have a new bike

[Winston001]

Winston, you're making too much sense. Exactly how hard did you hit your head when you came off that bike of yours?

You Scottish blaggard, away wi ye. I'm on dial-up at the moment and canna waste kps on the likes of you.

[Winston001]

but you still have a new bike

Ah yes - and a new loan. Which might not be so easy to repay and no-one wants to buy the bike. That's what happened in a rough sort of way during the recession.

[Winston001]

An earlier poster queried the land tax proposal:

A land tax is very simple and logical. Lets say a rate of 1% per year but your family home is exempt.

You own a rental house worth $300,000. The annual land tax on that property is $3000.

If you can’t make enough money out of the house (bearing in mind that a lot of rentals have heavy mortgages) you sell. Land tax is an incentive to use land (apart from your home) efficiently or move along.

Farmers will scream – imagine the annual tax on a $2.5 million dairy farm. Not sure how family holiday homes which aren’t rented out would be treated.

[Blackflagged]

Commercial proberty Rates are nearly double that, of the Same value house.You get bugger all for it.This is not a business encouraging country.Unfortunatly Farms , can`t take there land with them, or i`m sure they would go somewere with less papper work and Taxes.
Your" wealthy local Diary owner",is going to have to pay alot more rent, with this land Tax,it won`t just hit the wealthy.

[mashman]

Quite right. It does exist in the sense that we all use it. Money is a measure of value. Your house has a value, so you borrow some money from the bank to buy a new bike. What if everyone in your town suddenly lost their jobs and had to sell their houses? What would yours be worth? Where did its "value" go?

The result is everyone becomes poorer.

So we all get fucked over to pay real money back to someone who hasn't lent us any real money to begin with... brilliant! money laundering without any capital layout...

[Winston001]

...... when the real issue is the really, really, weathy elites. The middle class get a lot of smoke and sunshine blown up their arses along the lines of "you too can be one of the elites' (you can't, basically) and the poor are kept in line by having little power......

I enjoy your posts but have to disagree with your contention that a few wealthy elite have (or will) control most resources and power. In fact its a signature of developed nations that this doesn't happen. It isn't allowed.

In NZ laws were created in the late 1880s (I think) to break up the huge land estates which had been accumulated by a few families. In the UK similar moves were made to break up centuries old family holdings. The favoured method is heavy death duties which forced heirs to sell. Indeed the combination of taxes against the wealthy in the UK once reached 105% - you paid more tax than you earned income.

Modern politicians and communities react strongly against too much wealth being accumulated in the hands of the few. I don't share your fears, although you make an interesting argument.

[Blackflagged]

The wealthy, are just the same as most people.They see it from there point of view, and look after there own interests.

[rainman]

I ... have to disagree with your contention that a few wealthy elite have (or will) control most resources and power. In fact its a signature of developed nations that this doesn't happen. It isn't allowed.

I suspect I probably overcooked my point a bit, so should clarify what I really think. But I'll do that tomorrow - it's late and I need to sleep.

[Hinny]

Here's George Carlin doing it for you in the first 1min16sec