National Thus Far

[David]

That part is true, if you're a salary earner.

People with inherited wealth or wealth portfolios wouldn't really get much out of leaving the country, it's setup perfectly for them to keep making money at the expense of others.

People with businesses, unless they believe they can foot it in other countries, same situation applies, the rules are nicely setup for them so long as they've got profit margins about 133% or greater than what they'd earn as a salaried employee.

[xor]

Anyone else notice the increase in 7 series BMW's over the last 15years? or the property developments going up around Whitianga? Or maybe the sky satellite dishes in Otara?

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by xor

Or maybe the sky satellite dishes in Otara?

Installed Sky dishes does not necessarily correlate to ongoing Sky accounts. Most of my rental houses have had non-active Sky dishes.

[xor]

You checked out the cars in a lot of the driveways?

[Warrick]

$20k wrx @ 30% interest over 5 years, YEAH BOY!!!! mean deals

[xor]

At basic interest that's impressive for someone who lives in one of the lowest socio-economics area's of Auckland to be able to pay off within 5years, especially with that sort of interest rate.

[A Corpse]

Nah when they start defaulting they just steal more shit from Mt Albert.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by xor

You checked out the cars in a lot of the driveways?

Are you fucking serious? As in, you're actually trying to make a serious point? NAH MAN, CHECK OUT THA CARS AND SHIT AND LIKE THEY ALL FUCKING SKY BRO I DON'T EVEN HAVE SKY.

1. The politics of envy make me want to stab you in the throat with a toothbrush I sharpened to fine point

2. You're mistaking credit-fuelled consumerism for improvements in well-being.

3. Just use this website instead: http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/. Facts are cruise control for cool.

And if we're talking facts, Working For Families improved child poverty statistics - the first time that's happened since the 80s, or so I heard on the radio. It'll be in that Social Report there.

Originally Posted by xor

At basic interest that's impressive for someone who lives in one of the lowest socio-economics area's of Auckland to be able to pay off within 5years, especially with that sort of interest rate.

They don't pay it off. They just keep refinancing until they go bankrupt. I used to see clients with 50% interest rates on ludicrous loans for shitty Holdens. I watched one particular client's debt balloon from 12K to 30K in a year. Why?

"Ees okay! I refinance!"

Her car loan repayments were huge, so she'd go overdue on power bills and phone bills and scrimp on food to meet them. Then when WINZ stopped helping with the power bills, she'd just "refinance" a new loan that rolled up her old car loan (plus penalty fees), and her overdue bills. With each refinancing her repayment levels got higher and higher, until they were consuming nearly all her disposable income (HNZ rents are taken from source - that is, before the client receives the payment).

In the end, I defied the rules and did something that gets your hand smacked - I told her to go bankrupt. She refused. Not sure what happened after that because I got a job that wasn't trying to consume my entire life and submerge me in misery and paperwork.

[xor]

All I was trying to get at is the difference in Otara from the 80's to now. I know that the cars and everything are all on HP and that there is a little casino in the town centre with kids running around outside unsupervised. But there has been a pretty big change, even in one of the scummiest areas of Auckland over the last two decades.

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Are you fucking serious? As in, you're actually trying to make a serious point? NAH MAN, CHECK OUT THA CARS AND SHIT AND LIKE THEY ALL FUCKING SKY BRO I DON'T EVEN HAVE SKY.

I didn't say this last time you mentioned working in the Public Sector, but fuck me I'm glad I've never had your job. Dealing with that day to day would be insufferable.

Maybe National should take a long hard look at the regulation of finance companies. I can't see it serving in the best interests of rich people(and thus, Nationals voters) to let poor people default on their loans.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by fidgit

Maybe National should take a long hard look at the regulation of finance companies.

This has already happened and we're in the midst of new legislation and associated regulation being pushed through. NZ is catching up to where the rest of the world was more than a decade ago.

[Deadmeat]

Given recent events that's hardly comforting.

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

This has already happened and we're in the midst of new legislation and associated regulation being pushed through. NZ is catching up to where the rest of the world was more than a decade ago.

I am gladdened to hear that. (and now that I think about it, vaguely recall you mentioning how woeful regulation has been - the comment about catching up with the rest of the world sounds familiar).

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by fidgit

I didn't say this last time you mentioned working in the Public Sector, but fuck me I'm glad I've never had your job. Dealing with that day to day would be insufferable.

Maybe National should take a long hard look at the regulation of finance companies. I can't see it serving in the best interests of rich people(and thus, Nationals voters) to let poor people default on their loans.

I'd be keen for a West Australia style law - namely, that you have to determine an applicant's capacity to repay a loan before you can lend. I know that reputable lenders do that, but the bottom feeders don't - they'll happily lend something they know you can't repay, as long as you've got chattels that they can take.

[leadinjector]

the whole industry is just a horrible thing imo... horrible cunts preying on the weak and stupid. not that i have a huge amount of sympathy for some moron who gets out a loan at 30% interest to buy a car. but at the end of the day its the people who have no choice who get fucked the hardest- i.e. the wife and kids who get the bash from their angry frustrated spouse/dad cos he cant afford to go booze with his mates.

[Cynos]

Hehe, there was a place called Bonza Finance that set up in New Brighton, just down the road from WINZ (a natural place to set up a third tier lending company), and they'd lend you money you couldn't afford, and when you got into arrears they'd "extend" your loan terms *if* you agreed to have them *manage* your money.

Admittedly, after they'd paid themselves their loan repayment they did pay the power bill and the rent etc, and all for the low weekly cost of $25.

I thought it was very clever - in the same way that a shark is very efficient.

[xor]

Originally Posted by Cynos

I thought it was very clever

Yes, but you are pretty dumb.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by xor

Yes, but you are pretty dumb.

And you're a whining little girl who holds grudges because I was mean to you.

[xor]

Originally Posted by Cynos

And you're a whining little girl who holds grudges because I was mean to you.

Are you Gentl e?

[Ab]

I don't see how a business plan dependent on human stupidity and laziness can ever fail.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Ab

I don't see how a business plan dependent on human stupidity and laziness can ever fail.

Commie government interfering with the free market. Bloody commies. Regulating shit.

[Juju]

Tax system explained in beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $ 20,"declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a Dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, this is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Overly simplistic with a right tinge - I think it's a good dumbed down explanation in light of recent announcements by Mr Key.
You left people - genuinely interested in how you would rebut the argument using simple beer math.

[Gentl e]

Originally Posted by xor

Are you Gentl e?

No, that would be me. BRU

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Juju

Overly simplistic with a right tinge - I think it's a good dumbed down explanation in light of recent announcements by Mr Key.

It's retarded because it entirely misses out the whole GST thing.

[Juju]

Originally Posted by Cynos

It's retarded because it entirely misses out the whole GST thing.

A little hard to apply to this scenario because it flips income around to make it an expenditure for the sake of explanation.
So GST would become an income tax instead of a consumption tax. So for the example above, part of each persons income would go down. The poorer people will go down even more because a greater percentage of their "income" would be taxed.

[blynk]

So the 4 poorest don't pay because they don't make any money? and are on the dole??
Also the person paying $1, why would they get a whole $1 off. It should be more like $0.20.
If GST was not raising, then there would be little complaint from the unemployed.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by blynk

If GST was not raising, then there would be little complaint from the unemployed.

+1, Insightful

[David]

It depends how you view the unemployed. I've always thought it was a little non sensical to give the unemployed a benefit, then actually charge a version of PAYE on that benefit for taxation purposes.

My viewpoint is that they're not wage earners therefore should not be considered tax payers, even with GST. I also think they should have their actual money restricted to a minute amount and be given a card that allows them purchases at supermarkets that are food related, in order to be discretionary about what they spend their benefit on.

[Saladin]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and they order 10 glasses of beer (or 120 ounces of beer). If they split up the beer the way that wealth is distributed in the U.S.A, it would go something like this:

The first five men (the poorest) would get a sip of beer each or 0.672 ounces.
The next four men would get a small glass of beer each or 8.22 ounces.
The tenth man (the richest) would get 7 glasses of beer or 83.76 ounces.

The ten men went to the bar every day and the tenth man seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Inflationary pressures are rising," he said, "I'm going to reduce the amount of your daily beer by 20 ounces. You will now receive 10 glasses of 10-ounces each, or 100 ounces total."
The group still wanted to split up the beer the way that wealth is distributed in the U.S.A. How could they divide the loss of 20 ounces of beer so that everyone would lose his 'fair share?' They realized that 20 ounces divided by ten is 2 ounces.
But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the first five men would have to pay the bartender 1.328 ounces of beer each. So, they decided to only take 0.672 ounces of beer from each of the first 5 men and take the remaining 16.64 ounces from the remaining 5 men.

Each of the first five men would give up the sip of beer (0.672 ounces) that they received (a loss of 100%).
Each of the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth men would give up 1.17 ounces each (a loss of 14.2%).
The tenth man would give up 11.95 ounces of beer (or a loss of 14.2%).

The result:

Each of the first five men would receive no beer.
Each of the next four men would receive 7.05 ounces.
The tenth man would receive 71.81 ounces of beer.

Each of the first five was worse off than before, having lost all of their beer. The next 4 were worse off, since they no longer received a full 8-ounce glass of beer. The tenth man still received 71.81 ounces (~ a six-pack), and was still happy.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their losses.
The first five men said, "We lost a sip of beer each. We don't get beer any more."
"Well, we lost more than a quarter of our beer" said the next four men "It's unfair that you only lost a sip of beer. We lost twice as much as each of you did."
"Wait a minute!" yelled the tenth man. "I gave up a whole glass of beer! I gave up more than all of you combined!!! The poor get all the breaks! First, they get free beer, and then they complain when they lose their free beer! The middle class are always whining about everything because they're too dumb to get as much beer as I do."
The tenth man called security, and the first 5 men were told to leave the premises, since they could not afford to pay for any beer.
The next 4 men stood silently watching, not wanting to risk the loss of any of their remaining beer.
The tenth man got into his chaufferred limo and went home.
The next night the first five men didn't show up for drinks, so the remaining five sat down to have beers without them. But, they discovered something important.

The first five men didn't show up to:

* harvest the grain and hopps to make the beer
* drive the trucks to bring the beer to the bar
* clean the beer glasses and sweep the floor of the bar
* serve the beer
* and, most importantly, work as the security guards to protect the tenth man and his beer

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, wingnuts and supply-siders, big-c and little-c conservatives, is how wealth is distributed in the U.S.A. The people who have the most money get the most beer. Take too much "beer" from the poorest people, belittle them for being poor, and they just may not show up anymore to make and serve your beer.

[Ab]

Beer is more expensive in Australia. FACT.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Saladin

...

Damn fuckin' straight.

[Saladin]

We must catch Australia's beer prices by 2025!

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Juju

Overly simplistic with a right tinge

Just a little. But it is great that you're fighting to improve the plight of the rich

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by David

It depends how you view the unemployed. I've always thought it was a little non sensical to give the unemployed a benefit, then actually charge a version of PAYE on that benefit for taxation purposes.

My viewpoint is that they're not wage earners therefore should not be considered tax payers, even with GST. I also think they should have their actual money restricted to a minute amount and be given a card that allows them purchases at supermarkets that are food related, in order to be discretionary about what they spend their benefit on.

Oh yeah, let's make them entirely dependent upon the government for budgeting. And what part of "congratulations after your rent you have $90 for every other expense ever" strikes you as being non-minute?

($90 for a person under 25).

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Oh yeah, let's make them entirely dependent upon the government for budgeting.

Something something 419 scams...

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Damn fuckin' straight.

agreed.

[Juju]

Originally Posted by chubby

agreed.

Ahh classic left v right analogies.
Right = Stop whinging that we get more money back thanks to tax breaks
Left = You're rich - I'm jealous so please don't treat me mean otherwise I may not work for you.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Juju

Ahh classic left v right analogies.
Right = Stop whinging that we get more money back thanks to tax breaks while your tax burden will increase due to GST and essential purchases making up a proportionately larger amount of your expenditure

You missed a bit.

[xor]

Originally Posted by David

It depends how you view the unemployed. I've always thought it was a little non sensical to give the unemployed a benefit, then actually charge a version of PAYE on that benefit for taxation purposes.

My viewpoint is that they're not wage earners therefore should not be considered tax payers, even with GST. I also think they should have their actual money restricted to a minute amount and be given a card that allows them purchases at supermarkets that are food related, in order to be discretionary about what they spend their benefit on.

If you create a system like that then all you'll do is create a market for unemployed people wanting to trade their 10kg sack of kumara and watercress for one bottle of beer.
Good in theory but pretty bad in practice.

[Golden Teapot]

As I've posted before the cheapest and best option here is to give people $5k and a one-way business-class ticket to Australia with the understanding that they must never ever come back (and will be denied entry and shipped to the Auckland Islands if they try).