This is why we need a constitution here in NZ!

[munterk6]

Recently in the US a tax specialist lawyer was being harassed and investigated by the IRS for failure to file returns and Tax evasion. He took the IRS to court(something we CANT do here in NZ) and won!!! On the the basis of the original intention of the 16th ammendment of the Constitution it is actually ILLEGAL for the IRS (Federal Government) to tax personal income.
This will open a mighty big can of worms hopefully. Read this article about Tommy Cryer, the lawyer thats made history, and is fighting for the working man.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

[rainman]

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

Ho hum. You anarcho-capitalists are such boring idealists. Bet you'd be the first in the long queue of whiners once services started getting shut down.

[Robert Taylor]

Ho hum. You anarcho-capitalists are such boring idealists. Bet you'd be the first in the long queue of whiners once services started getting shut down.

There is no need for bureaucratic waste on the scale that is happening here and in other countries. Big Government as espoused by this outgoing ''government'' and those more lunatically dispositioned further leftwards is nothing more than a crock. Why has the civil service gravy train grown by 50000 or more in the last 9 years, for example?

[Steam]

Please, feel free to fuck off to a country that doesn't have tax.

[Ocean1]

Please, feel free to fuck off to a country that doesn't have tax.

Our grandparents did that.

The loosers followed 'em.

[EJT]

mmmm.... a decision made by a jury. Must be correct then.

[JimO]

Please, feel free to fuck off to a country that doesn't have tax.

hahahahaha

[Winston001]

It's actually a very interesting argument the guy makes. He says that the right to work is constitutionally protected and is a traded in return for money = wages. Not profit, not interest - which are taxable. Accordingly wages are not income (in the USA) and therefore not taxable.

Hmmmm....can't see the IRS sitting still for that - it'll lead to anarchy.

However this is no argument for a Constitution in New Zealand. The only reason he succeeded is that in this particular case, he persuaded 12 people with a clever argument that he shouldn't pay tax on his income.

One of the positive attributes of NZ is we don't have an entrenched Constitution. We do have the Bill of Rights which does most of what constitutional scholars want.

[geoffm]

One of the positive attributes of NZ is we don't have an entrenched Constitution. We do have the Bill of Rights which does most of what constitutional scholars want.

Not entirely, it can be ignored or changed on the whim of the government of the day, like any other law, and hence provides no real protection. THis is compounded by our single house, where a party with a majority is a dictatorship. Anyone remember Muldoon?

[rainman]

There is no need for bureaucratic waste on the scale that is happening here...

I agree there is some waste, there always is. Please list all the government services that you would cut in order to eliminate income tax. Saying "someone should run the place better" is easy. Actually working out how to do it, that's a different game.

Our grandparents did that

Sheesh, you must be an old bugger.

[Robert Taylor]

I agree there is some waste, there always is. Please list all the government services that you would cut in order to eliminate income tax. Saying "someone should run the place better" is easy. Actually working out how to do it, that's a different game.



Sheesh, you must be an old bugger.

We had someone running this place better and at lower cost, now we have had 9 years of costly PC nonsense, for one. How about all the more recent low grade immigrants that are milking the system? Costly court cases for Middle Eastern immigrants. Taxpayer funded hiphop tours. The cost of administering''working for families'' when it would have been simpler to tax them and daily commodities less in the first place. Just a perverse money go round. Throwing money at yachting regattas. Funding the ''great'' pacifist of her time ( and her entourage ) to attend war remembrance services around the globe ( hypocrisy ) 120 MPs and their hangers on, why do we need so many of these parasites?
Just the tip of the iceberg. If we had more people in parliament that had business sense we would be a lot better for it. And that need not earn the tired old socialist rebuke that it would screw the workers. We have the most corrupt,arrogant and inept Government ever and I for one will be very happy to see the end of them.

[Ocean1]

Sheesh, you must be an old bugger.

Old? Perhaps.

In the 1920s and 1930s the average personal income tax rate was 3.3 %, the majority of wage earners paid none at all. NZ company tax averaged 35.4%, the highest in the western world, Australia's was then a tad ove 5%. We invented the most effective disincentive to success the world has ever known, and idiots have been wondering what's going wrong ever since.

[Forest]

Please, feel free to fuck off to a country that doesn't have tax.

What - like Dubai?

Sounds good to me.

[awayatc]

. We have the most corrupt,arrogant and inept Government ever and I for one will be very happy to see the end of them.

trouble is that it will take many years to undo the damage done, at least one generation......It takes people with vision to take charge of the big turn around....Who would that be?

[rainman]

In the 1920s and 1930s the average personal income tax rate was 3.3 %, the majority of wage earners paid none at all. NZ company tax averaged 35.4%, the highest in the western world, Australia's was then a tad ove 5%.

Now that I did not know, thanks. One question though: What was this as a percentage of GDP? The latest stats I can find shows us spending a bit less as percentage of GDP than the US, bastion of libertarian might and vision that it is. Tax is a common solution to the problem of providing a decent society, it seems.

I expect the expenditure of the government of the day would have been quite a bit lower - no roading, bugger all social services, I'm betting less (per capita or %GDP) of everything across the board. So my question stands - what would you cut from today's spending to eliminate income tax, or even reduce it to under 5%?

Here is the Treasury analysis of govt spend for the 12 months to June 2007. Revenue's what? $60b?

Please don't misunderstand: I support increased efficiency in government, and believe it's possible to reduce govt spend (through efficiency not policy change) by a few points without too much fuss. This should continually happen, like it does in any business. But the change this would make to personal tax would probably not even stretch to a pack of chewing gum. The real question is "what policy changes would you make to radically cut government spend", and as the answer to that is far more telling, it's seldom honestly expressed.