Dear Mr English, I don't want a tax cut

[Tank]

Lost money is lost money... that doesn't help those that have lost it, as they pay for it with their hard earned income

A fool and their money are soon parted. People invest blindly without understanding the business they are investing in always run the risk of losing money. Anyone investing in a company that gives loans to kids with no jobs for rapidly depreciating "assets" like cars and mag wheels and they wonder where it all went wrong FFS.

People should also take accountability for their own stupid investments.

FTR - I didnt invest in finance companies - but have lost a shit load of money on other investments - and like those investors also its all my own fault.

[mashman]

Let's just hope they can catch a tax break then eh?

ha ha ha ha

[mashman]

A fool and their money are soon parted. People invest blindly without understanding the business they are investing in always run the risk of losing money. Anyone investing in a company that gives loans to kids with no jobs for rapidly depreciating "assets" like cars and mag wheels and they wonder where it all went wrong FFS.

People should also take accountability for their own stupid investments.

FTR - I didnt invest in finance companies - but have lost a shit load of money on other investments - and like those investors also its all my own fault.

Very true... although i don't really prescribe to the fool bit... sure there are some foolish investments, sure there are people out there that rip people off... but I would have thought that the majority (as usual am prepared to be wrong) of people invest on good faith and when "market forces" speak, money is gained or lost... If the market is that fragile, I would have thought that we'd all be hoarding cash under the floor boards... but in the pursuit of more money, we invest... nasty catch 22 I suppose... what's truly safe? nothing if the heads of our banks get it wrong? or is it just way of the world? win some lose some HTFU????

[rainman]

He and his ilk are the reason you guys would rather not see tax cuts, but leave the tax burden on the rest of us?
...
The tax cuts, and the tax rates in general, affect the average worker, and normal families, the rich and privileged will always be able to afford a queen st lawyer to find loopholes for them. Comparing the rest of us to Hotchin is much as you said before: Reductio ad absurdum does not help dialogue.

No silly, not you, I'm talking about rich people. Normal, average people earn very little in NZ. (And I tend to agree with you, the very wealthy pay less tax than they should, although others here will tell you how the top x% pay greater than x% of all taxes as proof this ain't so - when it's just proof they drank the Act koolaid and don't understand progressive taxation).

Some questions:
- NZ Median wage is...? (a pretty good indicator of "normal" if you ask me)
- Is this low, ok or high? Compared to, say Paul Reynolds, Rob Fyfe, Hotchin, etc... or even any one of the useless GMs of this that or the other that I have come across in my time, most on $300k+, none at all exceptional. How about compared to Johnny or Jane Goodperson-Hardworker, on $100k? Or more relevantly, compared to the cost of basic living - food, shelter, energy, transport, kids?
- Why is this? Serious answers only please.
- What tax policy best addresses the obvious problems that this analysis reveals?

they should both be working for the same goals, the same purpose and for the same people......."us"!

Stop being sensible, you're confusing me!

[mashman]

Some questions:
- NZ Median wage is...? (a pretty good indicator of "normal" if you ask me)
- Is this low, ok or high? Compared to, say Paul Reynolds, Rob Fyfe, Hotchin, etc... or even any one of the useless GMs of this that or the other that I have come across in my time, most on $300k+, none at all exceptional. How about compared to Johnny or Jane Goodperson-Hardworker, on $100k? Or more relevantly, compared to the cost of basic living - food, shelter, energy, transport, kids?
- Why is this? Serious answers only please.
- What tax policy best addresses the obvious problems that this analysis reveals?

For ME:

Wage - 20/hour http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/...-earnings.html so 40 hour week, 52 weeks a year - $38,400
Low/Ok/High - I'm going to go with low, as this is low against 100K
Why (serious)? - because there is a finite amount of wealth to go around... because some jobs are seen as menial and therefore don't command a salary befitting of their status.
Tax Policy - not touching this with yours

[MisterD]

Some questions:
- NZ Median wage is...? (a pretty good indicator of "normal" if you ask me)
- Is this low, ok or high? Compared to, say Paul Reynolds, Rob Fyfe, Hotchin, etc... or even any one of the useless GMs of this that or the other that I have come across in my time, most on $300k+, none at all exceptional. How about compared to Johnny or Jane Goodperson-Hardworker, on $100k? Or more relevantly, compared to the cost of basic living - food, shelter, energy, transport, kids?
- Why is this? Serious answers only please.
- What tax policy best addresses the obvious problems that this analysis reveals?



Stop being sensible, you're confusing me!

QES (Quarterly Employment Survey) puts average NZ wage at about $50kpa
Seems about right, considering that on the whole we're a pretty low-skill economy, also "feels" about right in comparison to the UK wrt cost of living etc. It's obviously going to appear low versus a Fyfe or Reynolds.
See above - we're a pretty low skill economy, but you have to remember that the jobs market for CEOs is global which skews the comparison massively. Reckon you could give Fyfe's job to any baggage-handler at Air NZ without killing the company?

Tax policy? Ok, I'll stick my koolaid-coated neck out.
1) We need higher-skilled higher-paying jobs therefore our company tax rate needs to be attractive versus anywhere else industry could locate.
2) We need top tax rate, trusts and company rates aligned so that a) seriously high-paid types have no incentive to bugger about with structures to avoid tax and b) we're an attractive place to locate for the skilled graduates etc that otherwise go to Aussie, or London.
3) A decent tax-free allowance at the bottom to eliminate the margin effects against losing a benefit - I also like Sir Roger's idea of making that allowance higher according to the number of kids you have.
4) GST at 15% - for a whole heap of reasons, not least that it brings more from the likes of the growing number of tourists and is a little extra brake on consumption of expensive imports bought on tick.

[MisterD]

Some questions:
- NZ Median wage is...? (a pretty good indicator of "normal" if you ask me)
- Is this low, ok or high? Compared to, say Paul Reynolds, Rob Fyfe, Hotchin, etc... or even any one of the useless GMs of this that or the other that I have come across in my time, most on $300k+, none at all exceptional. How about compared to Johnny or Jane Goodperson-Hardworker, on $100k? Or more relevantly, compared to the cost of basic living - food, shelter, energy, transport, kids?
- Why is this? Serious answers only please.
- What tax policy best addresses the obvious problems that this analysis reveals?



Stop being sensible, you're confusing me!

QES (Quarterly Employment Survey) puts average NZ wage at about $50kpa
Seems about right, considering that on the whole we're a pretty low-skill economy, also "feels" about right in comparison to the UK wrt cost of living etc. It's obviously going to appear low versus a Fyfe or Reynolds.
See above - we're a pretty low skill economy, but you have to remember that the jobs market for CEOs is global which skews the comparison massively. Reckon you could give Fyfe's job to any baggage-handler at Air NZ without killing the company?

Tax policy? Ok, I'll stick my koolaid-coated neck out.
1) We need higher-skilled higher-paying jobs therefore our company tax rate needs to be attractive versus anywhere else industry could locate.
2) We need top tax rate, trusts and company rates aligned so that a) seriously high-paid types have no incentive to bugger about with structures to avoid tax and b) we're an attractive place to locate for the skilled graduates etc that otherwise go to Aussie, or London.
3) A decent tax-free allowance at the bottom to eliminate the margin effects against losing a benefit - I also like Sir Roger's idea of making that allowance higher according to the number of kids you have.
4) GST at 15% - for a whole heap of reasons, not least that it brings more from the likes of the growing number of tourists and is a little extra brake on consumption of expensive imports bought on tick.

[Tank]

I have the perfect solution.

You dont want the tax cut - I do.

So - when yours arrives please simply create a direct payment to my bank account 09 87665 463732 00 and we will both be happy.

[mashman]

QES (Quarterly Employment Survey) puts average NZ wage at about $50kpa

Sorry to nit pick but he asked for the median wage.

A company with 10 employees:

2 x 30,000 - admin staff
2 x 40,000 - sales staff
2 x 60,000 - foremen
1 x 90,000 - skilled tradesperson
2 x 100,000 - general managers
1 x 200,000 - the owner

lay them out: 30,000 30,000, 40,000 40,000, 60,000, 60,000 90,000 100,000 100,000 200,000

The company median salary: 60,000... rules for calculating the median take the middle value and that's the answer unless, as in this case, you have an even number of salaries to calculate against, then you add the middle 2 and divide by 2... ((60,000 + 60,000) / 2) = 60,000

The average company salary: 75,000... sum of all salaries divided by the number of salaries... 750,000 / 10 = 75,000

not such a subtle difference... but the figures look good for the average... which ones the closest to the truth?

[MisterD]

Sorry to nit pick but he asked for the median wage.

If you want to nit-pick then I think you'll find that "average" is not a synonym for "arithmetic mean". "Median" and "mode" are also methods of averaging. I don't know what methodology Statistics NZ used to come up with the their data, I just picked it as a likely-to-be-most-reliable source.

[rainman]

Why (serious)? - because there is a finite amount of wealth to go around... because some jobs are seen as menial and therefore don't command a salary befitting of their status.

True. As Georgie said, "It's all up to what you value". Why do we value the useless twats at the very top so much, that we misallocate our limited resources looking after them to the detriment of everyone else? 'Tis a form of inferiority complex, I think.

QES (Quarterly Employment Survey) puts average NZ wage at about $50kpa

That;s the average, though - so distorted by the extremes. From LEED for 2008 (a bit slow to update, think they take 9 months), median annual earnings is $30,480. 78% of people earn less than the average, IIRC. You can't sensibly take an hourly rate and multiply it out full time - too many part-time employees, or self-employed battlers.

Seems about right, considering that on the whole we're a pretty low-skill economy, also "feels" about right in comparison to the UK wrt cost of living etc.

Dunno about the UK, but surely if we are a low-wage and low-skill economy we should be working on that as a means to improve the place, build growth, reduce social problems, etc? (Rather than just keep kicking those on the bottom of the heap). Stands to reason, dunnit? Tax cuts for the people at the very top don't help us at all - it's just a misallocation of resources.

It's obviously going to appear low versus a Fyfe or Reynolds.

That's because they are obscenely overpaid.

you have to remember that the jobs market for CEOs is global which skews the comparison massively. Reckon you could give Fyfe's job to any baggage-handler at Air NZ without killing the company?

So, a global market for CEO's get's them to be paid more, while the same global market for low-skill roles end up with them paid less? Ain't capitalism grand? Where do you think this is going, medium term? Try running Air NZ without baggage handlers. Fyfe is probably the best of a bad lot, but still can't see him being worth $3m. He's just not that exceptional.

Tax policy? Ok, I'll stick my koolaid-coated neck out.
1) We need higher-skilled higher-paying jobs therefore our company tax rate needs to be attractive versus anywhere else industry could locate.
2) We need top tax rate, trusts and company rates aligned so that a) seriously high-paid types have no incentive to bugger about with structures to avoid tax and b) we're an attractive place to locate for the skilled graduates etc that otherwise go to Aussie, or London.
3) A decent tax-free allowance at the bottom to eliminate the margin effects against losing a benefit - I also like Sir Roger's idea of making that allowance higher according to the number of kids you have.
4) GST at 15% - for a whole heap of reasons, not least that it brings more from the likes of the growing number of tourists and is a little extra brake on consumption of expensive imports bought on tick.

1. This is just a race to the bottom. Tax is not the only instrument for doing this. What about fewer FTAs, less overseas ownership, localisation incentives? If we are not initially as productive as others what would it take for us to get there? (Other than slashing wages through global wage arbitrage). Besides, if you keep cutting company tax you lose income, and either have to raise individual tax (shrieks!) or lose public services (meaning the punters pay for them anyway, tax, user pays, little difference). Where does this reasoning end?
2. Seriously high-paid types will always bugger about with trusts and structures. Align the rates all you like, this will still happen. Besides, why not align them at the top rate and not the bottom?
3. Like the tax-free allowance. Not sure about raising it with kids but that could be because it's Rog's idea and I find it hard to believe anything he proposes could be good for us. Also long term I'm less keen for greater population, but that's another kettle of fish.
4. So why not 25% GST? Slowing import consumption is good, except where a large part of your economy is retail. What are the total costs of kicking import-driven consumption in the head? How many importers and shopkeepers will go to the wall. What will their staff then do? Or is it just a game of passing the cost to the ordinary punter so we can reward our not-so-super-Supermen, again? (Don't get me wrong, I like reducing frivolous imports, just think we should build localised manufacturing first).

[Tank]

I have it on reliable authority that Mr English does not read Kiwibiker for advise on the economic direction of New Zealand.

So - assuming that you are going to get a tax cut whether you like it or not - what are you going to do with it?

You could buy one of those $1 a day kids if you wanted to do something good with it.

[rainman]

Marty over at The Standard has done a good piece on this topic: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/excusi...ealous-budget/

[Tank]

Marty over at The Standard has done a good piece on this topic: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/excusi...ealous-budget/

The standard is the largest piece of crap I have ever read. Anything they write I oppose simply in the interest of logic and good taste.

[Tank]

Marty over at The Standard has done a good piece on this topic: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/excusi...ealous-budget/

and here is why "They pay the most tax because they have the most money The richest 1% (34,000) have an average income of $325,000; their total income is the same as the total income of the 1,345,000 lowest income taxpayers, who average $8,400 a piece."

There are around 4.2 million people in NZ. Lets assume that 3 million are of working age.

Marty believes that 44% of the income earners earn $8400 per annum
Thats 161 per week
thats $ per hour after tax. Well, well, well below the legal minimum wage. - So cannot be a accurate figure for people out there working.

So who make up this number? you got it - beneficiaries. The standard / left / labour actually think just because someone is taxed on their benefit (a silly exercise ifd there ever was one) that this is 'earning' a income.

fucken lefties. burn them all.