|
15th July 2011, 19:47 | #81 | |
|
Quote:
I take your point that the fairness of a tax is relative to what the particular society deems as such. Though imo a death tax wouldn't be seen as such atm because people may be forced to sell assets and comparatively it seems to be more of a disincentive to work hard and make sacrifices in the interests of your family (which rightly or wrongly I think society values).
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
15th July 2011, 19:49 | #82 | |
|
Quote:
It's like the school bully taking your lunch money and in return you don't get a smack in the face. But the bully isn't stupid, he only goes for the easy targets - governments and tax are the same. In reality some poor fucker is going to be hit with more of tax then other people. Bullies aren't fair, and tax ain't fair. |
|
15th July 2011, 19:50 | #83 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
So sensible people will take the necessary legal steps to prevent the loss of family property through forced sales - e.g., transferring assets into family trusts. |
|
15th July 2011, 19:59 | #84 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
In reality if an inheritance tax were implemented then (educated) people would plan in advance to get around it. The kids would become the shareholders of a company or farm, and they would be added to the title of (freehold) houses (with all debts forgiven in the will), possibly many houses and business shareholdings would be put in a family trust (if family trusts are still around then). People are very adaptable. |
||
15th July 2011, 20:01 | #85 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
15th July 2011, 20:38 | #86 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Sucks for the country's economic perspective - but still good for the families.
|
15th July 2011, 21:42 | #87 | |
|
Quote:
I would hate to see an inheritance tax. But it's funny that the reasons people give to implement the CGT are pretty much the same arguments that can be given for an Inheritance tax. The one that makes me laugh the most is that NZ should have CGT because so many other countries do. Well most other countries have inheritance tax too. The CGT would not be so bad either if it was just an across the board type one where everyone pays it - with no exceptions for family homes, farms etc etc. All the exceptions will mean is that there will be loop holes, and so not everyone will pay. Exceptions will also make it expensive to administer and collect (but easier for the voter to think it is a good idea because they think it will not effect them). GST - why put in exceptions like fruit and veggies - just plain stupid on so many levels. It pisses me off that property developers use GST refunds (ie taxpayers money) then don't pay it back. Why not stop businesses that buy property from claiming the GST back. All they are doing is using the GST money to do a development - then not paying the GST on the sale of that property. The company then closes up and IRD have trouble chasing it up - a.k.a. David Henderson and friends. At the very least the government should make the director or shareholders personally liable for the GST repayment. I think I'll finish my rant now. |
|
15th July 2011, 21:49 | #88 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
15th July 2011, 22:03 | #89 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
15th July 2011, 22:24 | #90 |
|
interesting thread. After having lived in sweden for the last 2-3 years where the tax brackets are like this:
<33000 euros = 30-35% tax >33000 euros = 50% tax >55000 euros = 55% tax and, seeing a lot of wastage and not really feeling like I benefit out of this higher tax vs what I had in NZ or even what my friends have in UK (granted, I am not old and in need of the health system, but we have one of those in NZ, right?), I think 33% as a top tax bracket is LOW. That said - that kind of tax bracket (33% at the top), is something that I consider "fair" - i.e. I will not attempt to avoid it. Somewhere around 38 and upwards I start to think I have to do something about it. I'm for the 5000 dollar tax free thing, because for low income earners, that amount of money makes a huge difference. For a mid/upper income earners it makes %-wise a far smaller difference and is not likely to impact life quality. Remember, it's good to have happy(er) people around you so you can walk safely to the shop to buy stuff ;-). I'm for the CGT on investment properties, I mean.. honestly... NO CGT? NZ is certainly one of the few countries in the western world not taxing this. It's a form of income, tax it for god's sake. Otherwise it's just a way of avoiding tax. It should be aligned with the top tax bracket (33%). All of that said, I'm still going to vote National. I don't know if they will cave and implement CGT anyway but I hope they do. Labour have just done a bit too much pandering in the past for my taste . |
15th July 2011, 22:39 | #91 |
|
Inheritance tax vs CGT, a simplistic view:
Lack of CGT encourages foreign nationals to buy property and funnel any money gained from that back overseas. Lack of Inheritance tax encourages wealthy folks to move their families to NZ.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
15th July 2011, 23:44 | #92 |
|
Don't forget though. If you are on the top rate, its only income from that point on that gets charged that that rate.
So if you were on 160k, you would be paying an extra 9% on 10k a year. I wouldn't magically get to the top rate and decide I have to avoid it. |
16th July 2011, 00:15 | #93 |
|
All good, including the cut on GST. Might make healthier living more appealing for low income families and their children. God knows they've been squeezed to next to nothing with National.
|
16th July 2011, 00:43 | #94 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
I can't see it myself. Prices are set to maximise profit. If more people can afford vegetables then the price of vegetables will go up. Hell prices will go up even if more people can't afford vegetables since labour is imposing extra costs on businesses that sell vegetables. This stuff is taught in fourth form economics right? |
|
16th July 2011, 01:07 | #95 |
|
Ok fine. Lets not take GST off fruit and veges. We just need to start taxing foods that have high sugar or fat.
|
16th July 2011, 01:14 | #96 | |
|
Quote:
Gains either way would be debatable, raise prices and maintain (or loose) current volume in sales, maintain GST reduced price and increase volume. Guess it all depends on how far forward they end up thinking. My concerns would largely be with those that Key and co have choked with current policies making the basics somewhat of a luxury, if the GST cut on fruit and vege goes as intended and the knuckle draggers stay in the minority, then it'll go a long way for those families. |
|
16th July 2011, 01:21 | #97 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
16th July 2011, 01:41 | #98 |
Stunt Pants
|
Breaking: Labour wins election by narrow margin, declares removal of GST from fresh fruit and veges.
Also in this news hour: growers and sellers hail tax break.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
16th July 2011, 02:43 | #99 | |
|
Quote:
You are right, when you get to 170k etc. it won't give you much incentive to pack your bags and move. Actually the 150k+ and 39% tax isn't that bad at all relatively (c.f. swedish tax rates where you hit 50% @ > approx 60-70k NZD). I think tiered tax systems are fine so long as the levels are appropriate. In this case, what labour are proposing isn't unreasonable as a top tax bracket. Right now I view the NZ tax system as extremely attractive (33% as a top bracket is v. low). The UK implement a 40% rate above 37k pounds (which at the moment although not really comparable translates to 74k nzd). Below that it's 20%. Personally I think the NZ system is nicer . |
|
16th July 2011, 09:45 | #100 |
Love, Actuary
|
So if we use the historically extremely unusual Uk NZ cross rate or compare to an extremely unusual country then things look okay?
Also, I think the UK allows income splitting for tax purposes. Something labour aren't interested in. So if you like the top UK rate under normal conditions doesn't apply until more like $250k NZ. |
16th July 2011, 10:49 | #101 |
|
We should have a cunt tax so that we can take all of GTs money.
|
16th July 2011, 11:07 | #102 |
Love, Actuary
|
Oh don't worry - there are plenty of envious people and plenty of pretty stupid people all of whom will think labour are magical for suggesting this. In the first category we have the evil people who hold this country back (your traditional left voters) and in the second category those who have been taken advantage of by despicable politicians who'll promise anything to get power.
|
16th July 2011, 12:22 | #103 | |
|
Quote:
I'm not sure we will see the pound at 3:1 against the NZD anytime soon . In any case - the cross rate doesn't really matter in this comparison I think because we're talking about %s of earnings (edit: yes, I did a quick conversion using 2:1 simply for illustration but it wasn't relevant). What is more interesting is the tax bracket setup. New Zealand, vs. most other western countries has quite a low top tax bracket. I think you can argue that it's high all you like but you'll probably earn only scoffs from anyone from outside NZ. Last edited by Charismo' : 16th July 2011 at 12:24. |
|
16th July 2011, 12:54 | #104 | |
|
Quote:
The better for the economy thing is also questionable, it is generally used in a very self orientated way and has nothing to do with the country or its peoples well being as a whole a great deal of the time. It's an overused term in local politics that I find akin to how the American politicians use 'God' and 'the land of the free' for rallying the masses, its generally delivered hollow with little actual substance. I'm doing well enough for myself but I'm not that self orientated that I can't see what current direction is doing from the ground floor up. I find it appalling that grown adults think it's okay for children to suffer and saddening the reasoning's they come up with to make it so. |
|
16th July 2011, 13:57 | #105 |
|
Hahah, I see you've met GT, Anthony.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
16th July 2011, 14:39 | #106 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
|
16th July 2011, 14:58 | #107 |
|
no, cunt.
he's a cunt for being a cunt.
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
16th July 2011, 15:05 | #108 |
Stunt Pants
|
Oh... So people are jealous of his riches because he's a cunt? Makes sense I suppose. After all, Alan Hubbard was rich as hell but everyone liked him because he was such a swell guy.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
16th July 2011, 15:22 | #109 | |
Love In Vein
|
Quote:
|
|
16th July 2011, 16:13 | #110 | ||
|
If I sound a little incredulous, that's because I am.
http://publicaddress.net/onpoint/its-real/
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
||
16th July 2011, 16:31 | #111 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
|
|
16th July 2011, 16:38 | #112 |
|
Yeah, well, I suppose it's easier to believe he's playing stupid than to accept you're a archaic asshole who thinks people disagree with you only because they're envious.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
16th July 2011, 16:43 | #113 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
What you should really have claimed is that the top tax limit is not reached until something equivalent to $250k NZ of income. Here the proposition is to hit the limit at just $150k. It's the usual nonsense - a single income family on $200k will be worse off then a two worker family where each earns $100k. |
|
16th July 2011, 16:49 | #114 | |
|
Quote:
In my opinion judgmental thinking and rational thinking aren't exactly things that go hand-in-hand...
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
16th July 2011, 18:57 | #115 |
|
I'm against a CGT because it is interference in the market, inteference creates volatility and uncertainty, we commonly know this as a bubble, end result? the small investors lose, wealth gets concentrated into the hands of a few as the market adjusts and all the small players get shaken out, then things carry on as usual with house price increases paralleling mortgage interest costs.
Labour and National are tag teaming us once again. Asset sales or Tax your Assets All politicians should be issued trench-coats and lollies The government should let individuals loan money from them at OCR+admin cost, fuck the banks and we all win. peg "inflation adjusted wage increases" to OCR. not some fictional figure. |
16th July 2011, 19:18 | #116 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
17th July 2011, 00:02 | #118 | |
Always itchy
|
Quote:
__________________
4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° |
|
17th July 2011, 00:54 | #119 |
|
I think he's an excellent example of modernistic thinking (and why we live in a post-modern world.)
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
17th July 2011, 04:54 | #120 | |
|
Quote:
GT, I was considering a single earner not a single income family. However, I agree that we should allow income splitting in New Zealand. Unlike higher taxes, income splitting doesn't seem that prevalent in Europe (certainly not in the nordics). And, I think given the euro crisis and the state of british affairs, I'm not convinced we will see such a strong british pound again in the near term (within 5 years). Perhaps on a longer term but anybody's guess is as good as the next on that. You can pick on my currency rates if you like. To take the UK right out of the equation I'll just state that I think 39% on every dollar above 150k NZD is not unreasonable and would probably be happy paying it (as an individual), with the proviso that income splitting would also be allowed. |
|