Random Politics

[A Corpse]

Heard that this morning. Funny how quickly Romney was backing away from that particular piece of idiocy. And at the same time, it's depressing that enough people in the US think like that that a congressman/wanna-be-senator would believe it's OK to state out loud.

[Spoon1]

America, fuck no.

[chubby]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-t...rich-dodge-tax

[aR Que]

Fucking hell GT, pay ya taxes.

[chubby]

im sure gt pays his taxes.
he's exemplary.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by chubby

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-t...rich-dodge-tax

The fuck? Why the fuck should someone voluntarily pay more tax than he or she is required to by law?

[fixed_truth]

Afaik the "required to by law" part can be quite ambiguous with a fine line between clever accounting & illegal avoidance. How many of the half of individuals worth more than $50 million not paying the top personal tax rate have been investigated? The IRD seems to have a good track record here.

The IRD is believed to have won nine out of 10 tax avoidance cases recently, with the latest success setting a precedent for a further 12 challenges to the department's OCN rulings.

I think the argument here is more that the law should require these people to pay more tax.

[Cyberbob]

They don't dodge tax, they pay the exact amount required of them, and not a penny more.

Yes that amount is far too low thanks to clever accounting, tax havens etc etc, but that's not their problem.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Afaik the "required to by law" part can be quite ambiguous with a fine line between clever accounting & illegal avoidance.

That makes no sense. It's either ambiguous, or there's a line. You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, when it comes to tax time my instructions to my own accountant are simple: structure my affairs in such a way as to make my tax obligation as small as possible, then whatever the bill is, pay it. I have engaged a professional to assist me in avoiding as much tax as I can. Anyone who suggests that this is somehow immoral can lick my balls.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

That makes no sense. It's either ambiguous, or there's a line. You can't have it both ways.

Maybe my idiom is wrong? Because it can be open to more than one interpretation (ambiguous) there doesn't seem to be a clear distinction. An accountant may interpret certain avoidance as fine and then the IRD successfully challenges this.

Originally Posted by Ab

Anyway, when it comes to tax time my instructions to my own accountant are simple: structure my affairs in such a way as to make my tax obligation as small as possible, then whatever the bill is, pay it. I have engaged a professional to assist me in avoiding as much tax as I can. Anyone who suggests that this is somehow immoral can lick my balls.

It sounds like you think that if it's within the law, then whatever tax you are paying is your fair share.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by Ab

...structure my affairs in such a way...

Did you actually use this phrase? If so:



I approve.

[Ab]

It's equally likely that I used the phrase "sort my shit out".

[xor]

Originally Posted by Ab

I have engaged a professional to assist me in avoiding as much tax as I can.

The term is 'minimise tax obligations'. Avoid is a nasty nasty word

[Ab]

Actually I think the distinctions are now mitigation (taking advantage of the tax system as it is intended to minimise tax), avoidance (taking advantage of the tax system other than as intended to minimise tax), and evasion (breaking the law to minimise tax).

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by chubby

im sure gt pays his taxes.
he's exemplary.

Except for GST on iPad purchases of course.

[Ab]

Protip: the retailer charges the GST and passes it on to the government. The customer doesn't do it himself.

[doppelgänger of someone]

Forum demi-god tier tip: GT buys his ipads from overseas.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by Ab

Protip: the retailer charges the GST and passes it on to the government. The customer doesn't do it himself.

You missed his posts about buying them in Australia, claiming the GST back at customs, then telling NZ customs they're second hand (because he's used them) to avoid paying GST on the import then?

[Ab]

His post (now I've found it) seems eminently sensible and I would do the same myself. If I've got an iPad in my hand or backpack, containing apps and music that I bought and photos and movies that I took and with my fingerprints all over it, it's obviously not brand new. Brand new things come in boxes with shrinkwrap and manuals and powersupplies and shit.

[sidbo]

sophistry.

[Ab]

Well then, at what point would YOU say something stops being "new" and starts being "used"?

[Saladin]

You say evasion, I say avoision

[sidbo]

Originally Posted by Ab

Well then, at what point would YOU say something stops being "new" and starts being "used"?

I'll answer this strawman with another strawman, it becomes second hand once GST has been paid.

[Ab]

Then, again, it's second-hand the moment it's purchased in Australia, because the retailer charges the GST as part of the retail price and forwards it to the Australian government.

[sidbo]

ok, "paid and NOT subsequently claimed back"... that better?

I mean, he's not paid GST on the device at all. In either country that requires you to actually pay GST on such. That's what the sophistry comment was directed at.

[Ab]

I must confess to not knowing exactly the current state of the law in NZ because I've been out for a while. Correct me if I'm wrong with my assessment of GT's workflow:

• GT in Australia buys a new boxed iPad in a store for full Australian retail including GST.
  
• GT opens the box up and uses the iPad for (whatever time).
  
• Before departing Australia GT goes to a TRS office at the airport and claims back the GST component of his purchase.
  
• Upon arriving in NZ and making his customs declaration, GT declares the iPad value to be (less than the NZ-dollar equivalent of full Australian retail) because the iPad is not brand new.
  
• This lower valuation puts the iPad beneath (some threshold) which means customs duty and GST are not required.

Am I right with this?

[CCS]

Surely it's second hand when the person who bought it sells or gives it to a second person. Hey look, I get that it's just facade either way, but this business about when the GST is paid has nothing to do with whether or not it's second hand.

[Ab]

Actually from my reading of the shit site at

http://www.customs.govt.nz/features/...ault.aspx?s=21

"second-hand" and "used" are irrelevant. The only question is "how much is it worth?", and GT is saying that by not being new in box and having been used for (unspecified time), the value of the iPad is less than one that IS new in box and totally virgin.

[aR Que]

It's just a shame only the wealthy can afford accountants to advise them on how to be clever.

[pxpx]

Are accountants really that expensive though? I think it's more that only the wealthy need accountants.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Are accountants really that expensive though?

They charge more than i do and i'd never be able to afford me!

[crocos]

Originally Posted by aR Que

They charge more than i do and i'd never be able to afford me!

You can claim them back as a tax write-off in the next financial year.

[TnT]

Originally Posted by aR Que

They charge more than i do and i'd never be able to afford me!

A good accountant will not cost you money. My experience has been, when I've used an accountant, he has more than covered his invoice in the reduction of tax exposure I have compared to when I have not used an accountant.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Ab

Am I right with this?

Yes.

They do not ask you what you paid for an item they ask what the value is. It is entirely possible that the value is more than you paid and customs do have the right to make such an assessment. Equally, it's entirely possible that the value is lower than you paid as is the case almost always for a used item.

You just need to be confident in your own mind that the value you're associating with the item is objectively fair since you'll need to defend yourself if challenged.

There is only a tiny grey area to play with. In most cases it is very clear upon which side of the limit you fall.

Only a complete idiot would mess with customs - once you're in their database as a rouge life will forevermore be tough at the border.

[Torka]

they're often not very vigilant though

a couple years back I ordered some melatonin online, which is prescription-only in NZ (don't ask me why, it's OTC almost everywhere other than NZ and Britain) and the dumb pricks sent it with MELATONIN plastered all over the outside of the package in big letters

...it got to me without a single holdup or enquiry

[Charismo']

GT and Ab are in the clear - how many of you value something less once someone has unboxed it and put their greasy fingers all over it?

People on ebay, trademe, etc. all advertise and manage to sell items for a higher price than people selling unboxed items.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by aR Que

It's just a shame only the wealthy can afford accountants to advise them on how to be clever.

I've never had an accountant's services cost me more than the accountant saved me in tax. In other words, using an accountant essentially costs me nothing.

In any case, an accountant's fees are tax deductible. So not only does the service essentially cost nothing, you get to claim that expense back anyway.

(edit, just noticed crocos and TnT covered this above)

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Ab

I've never had an accountant's services cost me more than the accountant saved me in tax. In other words, using an accountant essentially costs me nothing.

In any case, an accountant's fees are tax deductible. So not only does the service essentially cost nothing, you get to claim that expense back anyway.

(edit, just noticed crocos and TnT covered this above)

whew.

[chubby]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=10830925

Yet another damning report on child poverty; yet another announcement of a further piece in the welfare reform jigsaw to draw attention away from that report's bleak contents.

How much longer can National keep pulling that particular rabbit out of the hat every time the political going gets a little rugged?

The answer is for as long as the tactic works. Forget civil liberties. Cutting the benefits of the unemployed if they refuse or fail a drug test when that's a requirement of a job offer hits all the right buttons with the wider electorate. It's something National was always going to save for a rainy day.

You would, therefore, have had to come down in the last shower to believe it was mere coincidence the Government confirmed that drug testing would go ahead on the same day a major report on child poverty was released.

For that reason, National will continue to tackle only the more politically noisy and troublesome manifestations of child poverty. Not surprisingly, it does not look kindly on those reminding the public it is doing only that.

[aR Que]

So, anyway, to break up chubbies, tirade.

These asset sales, eh, so it looks like national will go ahead and the Maori will challenge it. So does that mean, if it goes to court
a) Govt. wins (?) and sells the assets
b) The Maori win it, and they take ownership (?) of the water

Both options don't look good. I don't think i fully understand what ownership rights they want? Me being stupid, or no one really understanding what they're after? Or am i going to be told i don't get it, because i'm white?