Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
1918 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 495

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1685326 9-Dec-2016 14:06
One person supports this post
Send private message

It is not "legalised theft" to avoid tax. It is evading tax that is illegal.


735 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 174


  Reply # 1685337 9-Dec-2016 14:27
Send private message

I guess he's raised a point that National under Key have avoided, that something needs to be done about the way we generate income as a society. Everybody knows NZ Super cannot be sustained, and with house prices increasing much faster than wage growth, what choices will someone have who is say 18 now? No superannuation, potentially very high personal tax rates (to pay for those still getting super), pay off a student loan and presumably have no chance of owning a home where they work. 

 

 

 

If there is any kind of correction, then it will hurt someone, the tricky part is working out who. 


 
 
 
 


774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 592
Inactive user


  Reply # 1685338 9-Dec-2016 14:30
Send private message

Fred99:

 

There is more information on his proposed tax system here:

 

http://www.top.org.nz/tax_policy_launch_speech_notes

 

 

 

Edit: I'm not going to go through posts above where apparent holes have been picked in his proposals, but a quick look through that document suggests that he has thought about it and has some answers.

 

 

Ok - Direct quote from that:

 

Assets affected will include (but not be restricted to) property, equipment, structures, brands, goodwill and Intellectual Property. Land and homes...

 

 

 

So under this proposal, all businesses will be taxed on "a minimum rate of return" on the combined value of all their assets, plant & machinery, properties, IP, Brand, etc.  As well as on net profit?

 

 

 

Discussion so far has been focused on homeowners and individuals, but the application of this model to Industry in NZ would be catastrophic. 

 

(and how would it work for the likes of Google New Zealand Limited, Apple Incorporated Limited and McDonalds Restaurants (New Zealand) Limited with combined global brand and IP asset values approaching a trillion dollars coming in to play?)  For context, NZ's entire GDP is roughly equivalent to the "minimum rate of return" on a trillion dollars ;-)

 

 


Glurp
9731 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4650

Subscriber

  Reply # 1685344 9-Dec-2016 14:49
Send private message

I am not an economist and I have avoided this discussion because I am not qualified to participate other than at the most superficial level, but several years ago in Europe there was a lot of talk about taxing spending according to its environmental consequence and not taxing income at all. So you get  to keep all you earn but if you want to drive a car instead of ride a bike, you pay a penalty and if you want to drive a SUV you pay a bigger penalty. I have no idea how this would work in practice, or if it even could, but on the surface it sounds attractive. Taxing income seems a bit arbitrary, another case of doing it that way because it is easiest, while taxing irresponsible spending would seem to be more fair. If someone can afford it and simply must have a fume-spewing diesel or gas-gulping V8, they are allowed to do so, but at a significant price. Plastic bags and non-recyclable containers also remain a choice, but are expensive. But basics like food and shelter are cheap and untaxed so the poorest can afford them and can have a decent life without descending into absolute poverty. But if they want anything more than the basics they have to be able to work to afford them, and if they make poor choices, like tobacco and fast food, they have to work hard because those are very expensive. Of course the details would be much more complicated. This is just an idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


320 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 56
Inactive user


  Reply # 1685348 9-Dec-2016 15:02
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

I am not an economist and I have avoided this discussion because I am not qualified to participate other than at the most superficial level, but several years ago in Europe there was a lot of talk about taxing spending according to its environmental consequence and not taxing income at all. So you get  to keep all you earn but if you want to drive a car instead of ride a bike, you pay a penalty and if you want to drive a SUV you pay a bigger penalty. I have no idea how this would work in practice, or if it even could, but on the surface it sounds attractive. Taxing income seems a bit arbitrary, another case of doing it that way because it is easiest, while taxing irresponsible spending would seem to be more fair. If someone can afford it and simply must have a fume-spewing diesel or gas-gulping V8, they are allowed to do so, but at a significant price.

 

 

Dealing in environmental consequences is on the same level of arbitrary as dealing in unspecified and confusingly specified inequalities, IMO.

 

Does someone believe in global warming?  If someone does not believe in global warming and is convinced by arguments that it is a natural cycle or whatever, do you then browbeat them into silence like the proverbial Trump voter in the clutch of wither-ed Hillary voters? Is the environmental cost of a vehicle negligible compared to those of farm animals?  Etc..  Should all airplane flights and passengers bear the cost of any conceivable harm?  What about manufacturing?  The cost of coltan  being mined from the Amazon in your iPhone/tesla/gadget and other components? How many iPhone users consider themselves environmentally conscious yet fly often?

 

In the long run, would the tax go to dealing with the proven consequences of the thing being taxed, or would it be swallowed by election bribes like benefits for whoever..

 

To me, it's on the same level with Morgan's envy tax.


2611 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 756


  Reply # 1685349 9-Dec-2016 15:05
2 people support this post
Send private message

I haven't read everything, but what i have read keeps using the word "loophole" over and over.

 

I save a deposit for a house (while paying income tax on everything I earn). I buy a house and eventually pay off my mortgage (all the while paying income tax on everything I earn, and interest to the bank). I have worked and budgeted hard and now have a freehold house, I am exploiting a loophole by not paying more tax?


13874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6631

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1685350 9-Dec-2016 15:05
2 people support this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

I am not an economist and I have avoided this discussion because I am not qualified to participate other than at the most superficial level, but several years ago in Europe there was a lot of talk about taxing spending according to its environmental consequence and not taxing income at all. So you get  to keep all you earn but if you want to drive a car instead of ride a bike, you pay a penalty and if you want to drive a SUV you pay a bigger penalty. I have no idea how this would work in practice, or if it even could, but on the surface it sounds attractive. Taxing income seems a bit arbitrary, another case of doing it that way because it is easiest, while taxing irresponsible spending would seem to be more fair. If someone can afford it and simply must have a fume-spewing diesel or gas-gulping V8, they are allowed to do so, but at a significant price. Plastic bags and non-recyclable containers also remain a choice, but are expensive. But basics like food and shelter are cheap and untaxed so the poorest can afford them and can have a decent life without descending into absolute poverty. But if they want anything more than the basics they have to be able to work to afford them, and if they make poor choices, like tobacco and fast food, they have to work hard because those are very expensive. Of course the details would be much more complicated. This is just an idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The regime you are proposing here would be a nightmare to administer and would probably cost more than it yields. It harks back to the old school sales taxes where nails were say 10%, screws 12.5%, car 13.75%, tap 21.3% and so on .

 

Flat taxation be it consumption tax across all products, Income tax, corporate tax is far more efficient and mean we do not need diplomas in accounting just to do the house hold budget.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

 

 


1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 900


  Reply # 1685353 9-Dec-2016 15:14
Send private message

They pay tax on everything they buy ..its called GST.

 

Any other tax avoidance isnt tax avoidance as it is legal. Loopholes are legal.

 

JK didnt inherit his millions he earned it and paid tax along the way. These guys pay tax under the same rules we do. 

 

Seems to me the people who pay the most in this country are employees, whereas employers have lots of things they can use to create tax losses. But that is legal.

 

I would imagine JK has paid way more tax on his income than GM. After all GM got most of his virtually gifted to him from the sale of Trademe.


2706 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1307

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1685386 9-Dec-2016 15:57
Send private message

Hammerer:

 

It is not "legalised theft" to avoid tax. It is evading tax that is illegal.

 

 

Evading tax is theft. Avoiding tax is legalised theft... if it means you are paying less than your share. "Paying your share" is an ethical decision, not a legal one.

 

 


13874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6631

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1685394 9-Dec-2016 16:04
2 people support this post
Send private message

frankv:

 

Hammerer:

 

It is not "legalised theft" to avoid tax. It is evading tax that is illegal.

 

 

Evading tax is theft. Avoiding tax is legalised theft... if it means you are paying less than your share. "Paying your share" is an ethical decision, not a legal one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If companies and or individuals make deductions against their tax liability that have been sanctioned by parliament then it is not legalised theft. They are doing precisely what they have been authorised

 

to do. Now if one wants those deductions stopped one needs to lobby parliament for change in legislation. 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

 

 


13874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6631

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1685406 9-Dec-2016 16:25
Send private message

What I need to remember is that these  fringe parties or proposed parties can promise what they like as the chances of them having to implement their promises are next to zero. Should by some miracle they do get elected they can

 

use the old excuse that they did not know how things really were until they opened the books.

 

There is on caveat to this, it's 2016 and anything is possible. Crazy year.

 

 

 

So with that,  in the words of the immortal Fredd Dagg ESQ....

 

"So if things are looking really bad and you're thinking of givin' it away
Remember New Zealand's a cracker.
and I reckon come what may,

 

If things get appallingly bad and we all get atrociously poor
If we stand in the queue with our hats on  we can borrow a few million more."





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

 

 


12681 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4206

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1685408 9-Dec-2016 16:30
Send private message

This article is interesting on the subject of who pays into the tax system v who takes out of the tax system

 

"By comparison, the top 3 per cent of individual income earners, earning more than $150,000 a year, pay 24 per cent of all tax received."

 

So why there is such a downer on the well paid in NZ I have no idea.






721 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 105


  Reply # 1685414 9-Dec-2016 17:02
Send private message

All the ideas from Gareth Morgan have been ridiculous. the 5% tax/ tariff on houses is nuts. Some people would end up spending more on this 5% than they earn in a year. 

 

And the idea that people making higher incomes should be paying even more tax. Taxing people on owning luxury cars is also ridiculous. Already paying 33% income tax before paying GST or FBT on the car, anything more than this is just cruel.

 

 

 

These people making the higher incomes are less likely to be putting a larger burden on the government. Less likely to be on any benefits and any other government provided services.


735 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 174


  Reply # 1685417 9-Dec-2016 17:06
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

"By comparison, the top 3 per cent of individual income earners, earning more than $150,000 a year, pay 24 per cent of all tax received."

 

So why there is such a downer on the well paid in NZ I have no idea.

 

 

 

 

I don't think anyone begrudges the amount of tax high salaried earners pay. It's those that are self employed (farmers, builders etc) who may not pay their fair share. The PAYE employee cannot really avoid their tax obligation, but the under the table cash work, new 'work' vehicles etc that self employed perhaps can manipulate is another issue. I'm not really sure how that additional income can be gathered. Unless you removed income tax altogether and just found another method. 


1670 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 905


  Reply # 1685418 9-Dec-2016 17:07
One person supports this post
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

This article is interesting on the subject of who pays into the tax system v who takes out of the tax system

 

"By comparison, the top 3 per cent of individual income earners, earning more than $150,000 a year, pay 24 per cent of all tax received."

 

So why there is such a downer on the well paid in NZ I have no idea.

 

 

I think that's a good example of the inequality in this country that the left are always going on about


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

NZ and France seek to end use of social media for acts of terrorism
Posted 24-Apr-2019 12:13


Intel introduces the 9th Gen Intel Core mobile processors
Posted 24-Apr-2019 12:03


Spark partners with OPPO to bring new AX5s smartphone to New Zealand
Posted 24-Apr-2019 09:54


Orcon announces new always-on internet service for Small Business
Posted 18-Apr-2019 10:19


Spark Sport prices for Rugby World Cup 2019 announced
Posted 16-Apr-2019 07:58


2degrees launches new unlimited mobile plan
Posted 15-Apr-2019 09:35


Redgate brings together major industry speakers for SQL in the City Summits
Posted 13-Apr-2019 12:35


Exported honey authenticated on Blockchain
Posted 10-Apr-2019 21:19


HPE and Nutanix partner to deliver hybrid cloud as a service
Posted 10-Apr-2019 21:12


Southern Cross and ASN sign contract for Southern Cross NEXT
Posted 10-Apr-2019 21:09


Data security top New Zealand consumer priority when choosing a bank
Posted 10-Apr-2019 21:07


Samsung announces first 8K screens to hit New Zealand
Posted 10-Apr-2019 21:03


New cyber-protection and insurance product for businesses launched in APAC
Posted 10-Apr-2019 20:59


Kiwis ensure streaming is never interrupted by opting for uncapped broadband plans
Posted 7-Apr-2019 09:05


DHL Express introduces new MyDHL+ online portal to make shipping easier
Posted 7-Apr-2019 08:51



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.