It is optional now. Give it a go.
Printable View
Where did you get that idea? Residential property is subject to GST, as is rent, and only in rare circumstances will a landlord be gst registered for their residential property activity Everyone pays GST on any personal purchase of goods and/or services. Those few who are registered for their residential activity will pay gst on the eventual sale price, and of course lose out on the rent - so hard to see an advantage. GST catches everybody.
An article about High Wealth Individuals and their associated entities which have increased 75% over five years, which is massively above inflation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12252697&ref=art_readm ore
The number of super-rich earners on the New Zealand taxman's radar has skyrocketed in the past five years with 350 people now worth more than $50 million — some of whom are in a fight over more than $85 million in disputed tax.
The group - labelled High Wealth Individuals (HWI) by Inland Revenue - has soared 75 per cent since 2013, while the country's poorest residents continue to struggle.
Each HWI has, or controls, wealth in excess of $50 million. Their sources of income often include property development and investment.
Associated entities of the 350 super-rich individuals totalled 11,585.
Six years ago, in 2013, there were only 7009 HWIs and associated entities. In the 2014 tax year the disputed cost was $112.8m.
"You're seeing a real acceleration at the top end, whereas at the poorer end of New Zealand as best we can tell, the overall picture is either of growing debt or of stagnation."
To help resolve wealth inequality in New Zealand, Rashbrooke suggested implementing a wealth tax, which he acknowledged would ruffle feathers.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-...f=art_readmore
Vaughan Gunson asks who could possibly see the merit in wealthy New Zealanders paying a little more tax to help their compatriots out in a time of crisis?
That's the path to a more equitable and harmonious society.
Point taken, I will vote for the party at the next election that proposes to scrap taxes and rely on individuals intelligence and generosity to donate to the most worthwhile things that affect them directly, indirectly and not at all.
Unfortunately though, I appreciate you are very generous and know how best to spend your money. I on the other hand hate paying tax and would be more inclined to keep what I earn rather than donating it, if I don't have to. Also I lack the intelligence or broad information required to know how best to donate my money to have the greatest impact/benefit to the country as a whole.
I also lack the time or inclination to put in the effort required to make your proposal feasible. Possibly I am alone in this regard but suspect there may be others like me and that you Zaphod are one of a very select few with the generosity and intelligence to make such a system work. Although from what I read on this thread there are a lot more people on here like you than I meet in everyday society.
Perhaps sarcasm is not as easily picked up in the written form. But to spell it out I would suggest that taxation is not the destroyer of wealth and societies it is made out to be and I posted the article about Stephen Tindall because I thought it showed that there are some successful generous people out there who care for more than just themselves. This view was not shared by a couple of posters on this thread and blackcap suggested he is a "virtue signaling idiot" which I am not sure what it means but the idiot on the end would indicate it has a negative connotation.
Although I am pretty sure debt and/or printing money will be the preferred option for voters and their politicians over raising taxes on either side of the house.
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.