"Bold steps" by the g'ment - changes announced at 2pm today

[The Stranger:Me]

You're pulling it to extremes, focussing on a very narrow thing without considering the change in circumstances. Let's look at it simply. Would you rather:

(a) John Key stick to his original statement, despite the change in circumstances and leave New Zealand up shit creek?
(b) John Key change the plans of this government to give us a chance to clean up this mess, now that the situation has changed?

Or in biking terms - you're hooning down the motorway at 260km/h. You see both lanes are blocked with no room around them. Do you:

(a) Keep going at 260km/h because that was your original plan?
(b) Slow down and find a way around, even if that changes your original plan?

I'd pick (b), personally.

On a virago! Keep it at 260, cause no one's going to believe you unless the SCU validate it.

[Tank]

On a virago! Keep it at 260, cause no one's going to believe you unless the SCU validate it.

i Lollied.

[mashman]

Mashman, I see your point about Peter and Paul. The positive things for me in this is:

(a) They've indicated that any changes would not leave low income earners worse off, unless they own investment properties
(b) It shifts the tax from earnings to a tax on consumption, thus incentivising saving rather than spending
(c) That might lead to more investment inside New Zealand with less of our money going to China for cheap Warehouse plastic
(d) It slowly begins to change the attitude of people in the country as we are rewarded for improving ourselves, instead of trying to stay below the "Rich Prick" threshold of the poverty line to collect welfare

It seems positive to me. Probably won't be, given the history of politicans and the way best intentions end, but hey!

just offering up the flip side...

a) it's only going to affect the low earners if they start living beyond their means (same as anyone else really)... but with more cash in your pocket wotcha gonna do... low earners won't save it, they'll be using it to pay for the gas, electricity, clothing, food and everything else that's essential to "normal life"... The country is broke apparantly, so to fix this they're giving us all a tax break and putting up GST in a bid to cut the deficit and still provide the services against a back drop of inflation... hence robbing peter to pay paul... if you need money you gotta borrow it from somewhere...
b) Should be a good thing. But what happens when you find extra cash in your pocket... hmmmm... not everyone has a mortgage, not everyone have savings, not everyone wants to save and i think that's what the govt are really banking on... us spending and not saving. They'll get a bloody shock if it turns out the other way!
c) so trying to close the door, the fact that the horse has bolted means nothing... Kiwibank, brilliant idea, yet how many of you are with Kiwibank? How much of the current "profiteering" in NZ actually stays in NZ? From what i can tell, not a lot! The government should be competing directly with those companies that are removing money from NZ... for instance KiwiComputing to replace HP/EDS (lots and lots of money leaving the country from a technology standpoint) etc... that's how you keep your money in your country!
d) sorry, but not everyone feels that way. If it was that easy to change peoples minds about these issues, i'd run for govt myself, but i'd be pushing for the removal of money from NZ... noone wants to know, even though that's by far the only solution to 99% of our problems... but who cares!!!

In a financial economy, everything is personal. To you it seems positive. To me there's shitloads of money going somewhere other than in the pockets of the people who actually do the work. And yet i know that i still need to work and function to provide... to a certain extent I have to hang out my "morals" in order to survive in the financialy economy... and that to me is why it's a set of negative steps. The root cause is money and those who beieve the accumulation of it is a necessity in their lives.

[mashman]

Or in biking terms - you're hooning down the motorway at 260km/h. You see both lanes are blocked with no room around them. Do you:

(a) Keep going at 260km/h because that was your original plan?
(b) Slow down and find a way around, even if that changes your original plan?

I'd pick (b), personally.

does the motorway have a service lane (hee hee... couldn't resist, sorry)

[merv]

Key's message was a real "I'll tell you what we are considering but I won't tell you anything" message so I'm none the wiser.

The real question is at what rate does one need to spend the kids inheritance? The missing piece of the equation is the date of your death. Even if you have a planned end, what if for some other reason you don't live that long and you haven't had a chance to spend all your money.

[Coldrider]

That is interesting in that the IRD used a 7yr statute of limitations in declining claims from the aftermath of the 87 sharemarket crash and the resultant property market crash.
Many rightly declared themselves traders and claimed to their losses. All of a sudden the IRD about faced on what constituted a trader and declined the claims.
When the claims of some were finally upheld many many years later, if you hadn't claimed or appealed their earlier decision within 7yrs they refused to accept the claim.

7 year limitations for overpaid GST as well.
IRD have only four years to issue a reassessment.
Tax Admin Act 1994 sect 107A(2) removes limitation for fraudulent or otherwise returns.
7 years of sleepness nights is not enough for a get out of jail free card.
Time bar for amendment of assessments
• (1) When any person has made returns and has been assessed for income tax for any year, it shall not be lawful for the Commissioner to amend the assessment so as to increase its amount after the expiration of 4 years from the end of the year in which the notice of original assessment was issued.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), in any case where, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the returns so made are fraudulent or wilfully misleading or omit all mention of income which is of a particular nature or was derived from a particular source, and in respect of which a return is required to be made, it shall be lawful for the Commissioner to amend the assessment (being an assessment made on or after 1 April 1958) at any time so as to increase the amount of the assessment.

[Pascal]

On a virago! Keep it at 260, cause no one's going to believe you unless the SCU validate it.

Top of a mineshaft, straight down. Honest guv

[mashman]

Key's message was a real "I'll tell you what we are considering but I won't tell you anything" message so I'm none the wiser.

The real question is at what rate does one need to spend the kids inheritance? The missing piece of the equation is the date of your death. Even if you have a planned end, what if for some other reason you don't live that long and you haven't had a chance to spend all your money.

Then it's time to call in the top end hookers and get busy spendin some cash!!!

[Pascal]

The country is broke apparantly, so to fix this they're giving us all a tax break and putting up GST in a bid to cut the deficit and still provide the services against a back drop of inflation... hence robbing peter to pay paul... if you need money you gotta borrow it from somewhere...

I'm not following the Peter / Paul thing here. It might be my simplistic understanding of things though.

[SPman]

It actually doesn't bother me too much. Michael Cullen and his ilk handed National a poisonous financial chalice, after frittering away 9 years of healthy, good surpluses on useless bullshit, Hip Hop tours, toy train sets and what not. Prior to the election, when National was unaware that Labour had fucked New Zealand over financially, I'm sure they had no intentions of raising GST.

But then, once the real shit we'd been dumped in by those fucking socialists came to light, what do you expect? Of course they're going to make adjustments to their plans. Not to do so would be stupid. And they're looking at increasing taxes on consumption and reducing taxes on wealth generation. That's a bonus. More people saving. More people trying to better their lives. They're going to be creating the right types of incentives to take us out of a "Gimme because I want" culture into one where people take responsibility for their own lives and forge forward on their own, within a healthy, good society.

So yeah, good on John Key for taking the political hit but doing the smart thing. I'd rather have them change their minds because the circumstances have changed than having them stick to their guns into the face of all stupidity ...

:nods: Follow Adam's pyramid, aye?

I suppose you also believe the bullshit that Nick Smith has used for the justification of raising the Biker ACC levies.

Skyryder

Some people will believe anything - garbage in-garbage out!

If Key's involved, it'll all turn to tears......

[Tank]

To me there's shitloads of money going somewhere other than in the pockets of the people who actually do the work.

Actually Id say the problem is that there is shitloads of money going FROM the pockets of people who actually do the work to the pockets of people who dont.

73% of taxes is paid by 10% of the country - thats fucked up.

[mashman]

I'm not following the Peter / Paul thing here. It might be my simplistic understanding of things though.

Must be a saying from ye olde country... soz... It's essentially stealing money from one source, a source that still needs the money, in order to fund another source that "supposedly" needs the money too. So, you take money from income tax and offset the loss by upping GST... Peter being income tax and Paul being GST... There's no real logic to it, because next year you'll need to steal from Paul to pay Peter... It's a look at it from a governmental point of view.

Actually Id say the problem is that there is shitloads of money going FROM the pockets of people who actually do the work to the pockets of people who dont.

tomato - tomarto

[Pascal]

Must be a saying from ye olde country... soz... It's essentially stealing money from one source, a source that still needs the money, in order to fund another source that "supposedly" needs the money too. So, you take money from income tax and offset the loss by upping GST... Peter being income tax and Paul being GST... There's no real logic to it, because next year you'll need to steal from Paul to pay Peter... It's a look at it from a governmental point of view.

There's my problem. I was trying to equate Peter / Paul to social / economic groups, rather than taxes Thanks for the clarification.

However, consider this. GST is a tax on consumption. PAYE is a tax on income. There is a fundemental difference there that relates rather closely to NZ (And the world's) current financial situation. Probably of most households as well. So yeah, shuffling the source of income around, but creating a whole new dynamic with that.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out long term though.

[Clockwork]

Actually Id say the problem is that there is shitloads of money going FROM the pockets of people who actually do the work to the pockets of people who dont.

73% of taxes is paid by 10% of the country - thats fucked up.

It's not fucked up if 10% of the nation controls 73% of its wealth


(..... of course I'm not saying that it does, I don't actually know what the weath distribution is in NZ but it should be taken into account)

As the baby boomers start to retire you can bet that there would be even fewer tax payers. Of course by moving the tax base on to consumption we can continue to be taxed right up to the day we die.

[Skyryder]

You're pulling it to extremes, focussing on a very narrow thing without considering the change in circumstances. Let's look at it simply. Would you rather:

(a) John Key stick to his original statement, despite the change in circumstances and leave New Zealand up shit creek?
(b) John Key change the plans of this government to give us a chance to clean up this mess, now that the situation has changed?

Or in biking terms - you're hooning down the motorway at 260km/h. You see both lanes are blocked with no room around them. Do you:

(a) Keep going at 260km/h because that was your original plan?
(b) Slow down and find a way around, even if that changes your original plan?

I'd pick (b), personally.

Key came up with tax cuts to win the election knowing full well the countrycould not afford them. Once in power one of the first things he did was to cancell them on the grounds that we could not afford them. It's about the only honest statement he has made.

Now he comes across with the 'possibility' or 'probability' that GST will be raised to pay for them. commentators who know about this far more than I maintain that the proposed tax cuts and the raising of GST will benifit those on the higher incomes while those on the lower will be worse off. Already bikers are worse off with the ACC levies and there were many comments of 'who is next.' Unfortunatley most believed that the 'who's' next relates to further increase of ACC levies to certain target groups. Whose next?? I'm guessing here will relate to most on here. Keys is shitting on NZ...................like he did once before as a money trader. Remember the 'smily face' has a sharp pin on the back. Sooner or later it will be 'pricked' into most of New Zealand.

Skyryder