oh right, thank goodness. Those views are not that worthy of a first world country.
Only two things in life are certain, death and taxes.
In some other forums placing a "/s" at the end shows sarcasm though not sure what the practice is on this one.
Printable View
oh right, thank goodness. Those views are not that worthy of a first world country.
Only two things in life are certain, death and taxes.
In some other forums placing a "/s" at the end shows sarcasm though not sure what the practice is on this one.
The reason I called Tindall a virtue signalling idiot is that is exactly what he is with his call. He is trying to be virtuous without actually taking any action himself. It would reflect a lot better on him if he actually paid more to the tax coffers and shut up about it. He is trying to look virtuous to others without actually being virtuous. Just like the politicians with their intent to take a pay cut during the Wuflu lockups, but in the end how many actually took a pay cut? Again, more virtue signalling. It seems to be a disease that afflicts the left proportionally in larger numbers. (in my humble experience)
I would be concerned if Stephen Tindall an unelected representative had any control over the tax system. Possibly he is trying to sway public opinion and therefore politicians in regard to raising taxes on the wealthy. To me it means more coming from some one wealthy rather than some one looking for a hand out. I suspect you would be critical of any person who raises the possibility of a tax increase.
It was masterful sarcasm. I read it with the voice of John Cleese!
Sarcasm or not? John Cleese..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecc1XVhZkUA
Possibly he is and possibly he is trying to look like a decent man, caring for society that he is willing to be taxed more. (lets not forget the rubbish he imported from China into NZ with his red sheds and that damage that that caused) Maybe he is wanting the tax rates to go up, however he and the other millionaires are quite happy to pay their accountants and advisors to minimise their tax burden anyway. He looks good (calling for higher tax) but in practice pays no more. He should just shut up, and pay the money to the tax coffers. Or even better donate to his local community and bypass bureaucracy and other money wasting pen pushers.
I am sorry you see my posts as attacks on you personally. Although I hate paying tax I do see it as a necessary evil. So my posts were meant to be promoting my view rather than attacking you.
Your right you don't state that taxes should be scrapped I have obviously inferred too much from your statement which I have copied and pasted below.
"We have given regular support to the local health board redevelopment project, donated infrastructure to the council parks division, etc. That's a much more efficient method than doing so via tax, but obviously Stephen prefers compulsion amongst his peers."
I obviously mistook "That's a much more efficient method than doing so via tax" as meaning private individuals donating for public services was a more efficient method of paying for public services rather than taxation. The inference I took was that scraping taxes and relying on individual generosity was a better way forward. Was I the only one to make this inference based on Zaphod's post on this site??
I swore off the political threads a couple of years ago, rather than upset people perhaps I should stick to that.
P.s and in no way should my arguments detract from your donations to your local community. It is a wonderful thing and you should be proud and I write this without any sarcasm at all.
The context was that Stephen advocates for the wealthy to pay more tax to solve the various issues he sees in our society, but there are other ways to more effectively contribute to additional causes that he believes in.
I don’t begrudge paying tax, and I would hope that the majority of people do not, but the difficult part is always determining the level of taxation and what should be funded from it. Much of this is very subjective and invariably used for political gain during election years.
Stephen advocates for the wealthy to pay more tax to adequately fund various government services, but provides no details as to what he sees are the specific areas that are inadequately funded, nor why spending more money in these areas is the best method of rectifying the problem. Based on this alone we can’t decide whether his initiative is worthy of support.
We personally donated to specific initiatives such as a hospital refurbishment, trees & benches for a park because we saw a worthy cause that wasn’t being adequately fulfilled, in our opinion, based on existing spending from taxes. We are not in the top few percentage points of wealthy people in NZ either.
There also needs to be a much clearer definition of who is wealthy. Our PAYE system decrees that those who earn over $70K are wealthy, which places a proportion of those whom we believe are underpaid into the top (wealthy) bracket. With raging house prices, many people on modest incomes will be dragged into the top 5%, who would not be able to afford additional taxes without some significant compromises to their lifestyles.
IMO the situation and solution is complicated and deserves thorough analysis.
Don’t shy away from to continuing to post. It’s easy to misconstrue intent particularly on a long thread.
To pay off debt, support modern infrastructure and maintain super at 65 among other worthy and important goals.
That's not this govt's legacy though. The previous admin were in for nine years and did nothing about this theshold. The top 5% mostly pay nothing for the most part. what you're talking about are wage earners who are (rapidly) dwindling in their importance to the economy.
It may be time to update and modernise your way of thinking about things :)
Debt will be a significant issue post COVID-19.
What modern infrastructure isn't being supported currently? Why isn't it being supported? What are the adequate levels of support?
Should we maintain super at 65? Many other countries have raised the age required to qualify for superannuation in line with increasing lifespans due to overall higher levels of health in the community. Cullen himself penned a paper proposing that national super should only top up income derived from an annuity purchased using Kiwisaver funds, so perhaps that's the solution to maintain super?
Claiming these are worthy and important goals is highly subjective.
Raising wages while not increasing the income thresholds is most certainly is a legacy of this government, as well as many predecessors.
Not really, lowest in the world and owned by the RBNZ at 1%.
The infrastructure commission will have some recommendations although the govt is delivering alot of announcements recently. I like the approach of making it more region-based than it was in the past. My personal hope is a country wide freight network through Kiwirail. This will reduce the enormous damage trucks do to roads (so less spent on resurfacing and maintenance) and stop the importation of feul and new models of trucks.Quote:
What modern infrastructure isn't being supported currently? Why isn't it being supported? What are the adequate levels of support?
It can be if we re-fund the NZ super fund and lift Kiwisaver, two epic mistakes by the last government. Though they don't believe in red tape and that it will impose a burden to some businesses so it wasn't done sadly.Quote:
Should we maintain super at 65? Many other countries have raised the age required to qualify for superannuation in line with increasing lifespans due to overall higher levels of health in the community. Cullen himself penned a paper proposing that national super should only top up income derived from an annuity purchased using Kiwisaver funds, so perhaps that's the solution to maintain super?
You sure have some strange ideas. Here is the real picture from NBR
"As a result, the rich shoulder a disproportionate burden of tax. The top 3% of all households (above $250,000 a year) pay a quarter of all income tax. The top 10% (above $175,000) pay 50%. The bottom 60% (less than $80,000) pay $6 billion in tax but receive $7 billion in handouts such as Working for Families. They are net tax recipients. In total, they suck in a billion dollars.
Meanwhile, the top 10% of households pay more than $11 billion in tax. They suck in nothing."
Capital gains is not counted as income in NZ.
Interest rates are unlikely to stay at 1% until the debt is paid off though. Having relatively low debt compared to other countries, albeit only at this stage, does not offer comfort to tax payers who must still repay it. Debit is still a problem according to treasury forecasts.
Do the government announcements correlate with what the infrastructure commission recommendations? Can these be funded adequately through existing taxation? Or are you proposing we just throw more money at it?
Yes I think that if we had not funded the CHCH rebuild, we could have started recontributing to the NZ Super fund, or perhaps there was another way?
What do you mean since the interest is fixed for 10-30 years when the govt issues a bond.
after-inflation the interest is 0% ..
All of the above. the response should be adapted to the conditions we are in... which it has been for the most part.Quote:
Do the government announcements correlate with what the infrastructure commission recommendations? Can these be funded adequately through existing taxation? Or are you proposing we just throw more money at it?
Look around the world and we are in great shape. :)
It certainly is when it is income, although not when it is not income. The IRD will tell you the difference because I can't be bothered - or any accountant will explain it to you. And capital gains is a plural term. Therefore 'Capital gains are ...' is correct. 'Capital gains is ...' is not. Any educated person could explain that to you, but note that does not include school teachers.