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

[mashman]

Oh, but we do have a choice. or, would if we had a sensible governmental system. Ever hear of work camps? Don't want to work? Fine. Mess hut is that way. They'll give you three square meals a day - provided you turn in the work chit your labour supervisor gives you when you complete each day's work assignment to has satisfaction. No chit, no meal.

What gives the State the right? Same right as membership of almost anything - you want to be a member, you follow the rules : which may be established by decree (KB) or by popular voice (a democracy, if anyone could ever find one); or anything in between. Don't want to follow the club rules? that's fine, but you won't be a member any more. Don't want to follow the rules of this society? That's fine, but you won't be a member of that society any more. Go find another country where the people are willing to support those who don't want to make any contribution to the society (note that I'm including things like writing poetry, bring up children as a contrbution) .

Vote Communist - for a society that benefits the worker, not the shirker. It's the only way that makes sense.

That's the problem/solution. We all have a choice. We all do/see things differently. The rest of your post mentions the rules etc... aye, we humans just love rules... especially when they can be bent or even broken... but trying to turn humans into worker bees won't work either...

Heh, communism eh! Would it work. Dunno, be better off asking the country as they're the ones who have to "buy" into it...

[Pascal]

There are plenty of ways to get food without having to use $$$...

Would you let them die if they couldn't feed themselves?

Is a discussion a series of non-related points to you - similar to a connect the dots puzzle with nothing to connect ? We were discussing people who willing chose not to work. It's not a case of them being unable to work (I would help those). It is a case of them not being willing to work. (I would not help those)

[Pascal]

10% of people have more income than the bottom 50 % of us combined. The net wealth of 10% of people is 20 times the wealth of 50% of us combined. In fact, the wealthiest 10% have more wealth than everyone else put together. 70% of kiwis earn less than $40,000 a year.
So of course they will pay more tax!!!!

You're making a typical mistake by focussing on the individual, rather than the family. It's been used by a number of websites recently to try and divide rich and poor in New Zealand, by pointing out that the poor people earning less than $40,000 will get nothing from a tax cut, but will have to pay increased GST. A rather clever deception, if you ask me. Now although a bit of a National mouthpiece, David Farrar made this very good point today:

as of June 2009, the median household income was around $64,000.

He goes on to say that if that household includes a child the median income is around $75,000. Yes, 70% might earn less than $40,000. Their household incomes are significantly higher. Do you think $64,000 is terribly poor? That is $4000 above the Labour Party's "Rich Prick" threshold.

[mashman]

Is a discussion a series of non-related points to you - similar to a connect the dots puzzle with nothing to connect ? We were discussing people who willing chose not to work. It's not a case of them being unable to work (I would help those). It is a case of them not being willing to work. (I would not help those)

I was just replying to what you had written. You've still not worked out that things have a knock on effect... just like discussions... and i was replying in context.

What's the difference between the 2? One works, one doesn't... either of them could be wealthy, either of them could be poor, either of them could be exceptionally smart, either of them could be dumb... but both of them may well lie when it comes to handout time... How do you tell the difference?

[Pascal]

I was just replying to what you had written. You've still not worked out that things have a knock on effect... just like discussions... and i was replying in context.

Actually, no. You lost the context when you changed the tack from "wouldn't" to "couldn't". The two are quite different.

[mashman]

Actually, no. You lost the context when you changed the tack from "wouldn't" to "couldn't". The two are quite different.

Cheers for the explanation... but I still think the context stands as I was asking a question that's apt for both groups, the can'ts and the won'ts. Would you let them die if they couldn't feed themselves? It's a loaded question I agree, but was curious as to how you, or anyone else, could justify an answer. You tried, you can live, you didn't, sorry!

It kind of flies in the face of letting people do what they want to do... just curious how that can be justified.

[avgas]

We all have a choice.

Bullshit according to your theory. Where is my choice to keep what I earn?
Where is my choice to not support the systems?
What choice? Your choice is a joke - just like your argument that not all can work.
I have been fortunate enough to see men with no legs climb mountains, people with no arms paint paintings and people with no voice shout.
How does not having any jobs do anything to not being able to work? You said it yourself, not only money brings in food.

[Pascal]

Cheers for the explanation... but I still think the context stands as I was asking a question that's apt for both groups, the can'ts and the won'ts. Would you let them die if they couldn't feed themselves? It's a loaded question I agree, but was curious as to how you, or anyone else, could justify an answer. You tried, you can live, you didn't, sorry!

It kind of flies in the face of letting people do what they want to do... just curious how that can be justified.

If I resign my job today, seeing as you have a nice, shiny bike (Much nicer than mine, thus you must be a "rich prick") , will you feed my family so I can play video games and go for rides?

From your comments thus far you are saying that yes, you will and that yes, you should. Because to not do so is removing my choice from me and that it cannot be justified.

[davereid]

What gives you, or the government for that matter, the right to tell people that they have to work?

Nothing gives me the right to force other people to work. Nothing gives me an obligation to feed them if they dont.

[Swoop]

Heh, communism eh! Would it work.

It was a roaring success in the USSR...
North Korea loves it... (for a few more months, anyway. Right on the edge of collapse at the moment.)

[Winston001]

10% of people have more income than the bottom 50 % of us combined. The net wealth of 10% of people is 20 times the wealth of 50% of us combined. In fact, the wealthiest 10% have more wealth than everyone else put together. 70% of kiwis earn less than $40,000 a year.
So of course they will pay more tax!!!!

Could you give sources for this please?

[SPman]

Originally Posted by Kiwiblog as of June 2009, the median household income was around $64,000.

He goes on to say that if that household includes a child the median income is around $75,000. Yes, 70% might earn less than $40,000. Their household incomes are significantly higher. Do you think $64,000 is terribly poor? That is $4000 above the Labour Party's "Rich Prick" threshold.

So, what are the facts about household income? Information on income distribution within households is hard to come by. The tax system focuses on individuals, and so does not collect it, while studies on household income itself focus on the aggregate rather than who earns what (and usually use equivalised figures in order to draw conclusions about actual living standards to boot).

According to the most recent Household Labour Force Survey, there were 1,426,000 households in New Zealand. So, at most, 20% of households will benefit from cuts to the top tax rate, and slightly over half - 52% - from cuts to the upper middle rate. Which sounds a lot better than the individual figures, but the fundamental reality is unchanged: cuts to the top rate are irrelevant to fully 80% of households. Cuts to the middle rate go further, but still leave around half the population out in the cold.

[SPman]

Could you give sources for this please?

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_...ommentary.aspx

[Pascal]

Which sounds a lot better than the individual figures, but the fundamental reality is unchanged: cuts to the top rate are irrelevant to fully 80% of households. Cuts to the middle rate go further, but still leave around half the population out in the cold.

Out in the cold? Are they not receiving Working for Families and in a percentage of cases pay ZERO tax anyway? When they start contributing more to the taxation base I'll start worrying about cuts to top taxation rates affecting them.

Note as well that the government has indicated that benefits to these groups will be increased to compensate for the additional hit of GST with an effect to those who own rental properties. Wait. Low income earners with rental properties ... why am I not so worried about them?

So really, isn't this mostly a win-win type situation?

Edit: Thinking about that median and considering that when Labour introduced the punitive 39% rate a fair number of high income earners reshuffled their earnings to remain below that threshold ... did you realise the median weekly income from all sources was $1,271? Translating to roughly $66,000 per year? It would be interesting to see the spread for various brackets on that as it might be closely aligned around that median instead of being very spread out.

[Coldrider]

Bush lawyer.
If you are buying and selling a house (or shares etc) as a business then you are liable for tax and the ird do go for you. Even on your family home. Buying a house or shares for a long term hold is not liable to tax and consequently the ird don't go after it.

Perhaps this attachment IR313 IRD guidlines on buying and selling (any) property will bring you into the picture more clearly.
Note this publication does not bring into the equation 'associated persons', of which you would already know about of course.