Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | ... | 268

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2013248 10-May-2018 11:32

rjt123:

And hey presto! Statistical results say 87% of the respondents think that NZ'ers should pay more tax.... Not hard, totally legitimate but exactly the result you want.

Agreed. That isn't to say that THIS research was conducted this way, or that indeed the information gathered isn't truly reflective of the opinion of Kiwi's, but personally, I must admit some scepticism to it.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2013260 10-May-2018 11:45

To put it into perspective, this was a survey done by a trade union, for a working group set up by the labour party, headed by Michael Cullen. Given the result is almost already predetermined to tax the higher income earners more, this article could hardly be called news.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2013262 10-May-2018 11:47

In a country where so few pay net tax, it hardly surprises me that they would think those that do should pay even more....

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2013265 10-May-2018 11:48

networkn:
Guys, for the love of Christmas Crackers, can we PLEASE quote appropriately. It's just laziness. There is no need to quote 2 pages of stuff to add 1 line at the bottom of it. Please PLEASE just quote the relevant section. If you need help, ask someone.

and if linking to an article please quote the relevant points from the article instead of nothing but a link ; )

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2013268 10-May-2018 11:51

Potentially I'd support closing of some holes, but I'd like to see FBT reviewed, it's an absolute RORT right now.

I know some are in favour of CGT, but I would only support this if it excludes the family home. I know some disagree. If CGT is introduced, then it should also allow for a refund in the event that someone sells for less than they buy for.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2013284 10-May-2018 12:07

I see Mike Hosking points out the obvious flaws in Winston's $900m lolly scramble.

I do not think we should pay so much as a cent extra of tax if they can afford to give that much away to foreign countries. Clearly they are already in receipt of all they need to run NZ.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2013287 10-May-2018 12:12

Yes some families pay less tax than others circa 1/3000 however would we rather see greater poverty and more children at risk?

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2013342 10-May-2018 12:41

MikeB4:

Yes some families pay less tax than others circa 1/3000 however would we rather see greater poverty and more children at risk?

I for one don't believe that a 'fair' tax system means everybody pays the same dollar amount in tax. However, sometimes if more money is needed it's not about taking more to give more, it's just about re-priortising, and that's where this government struggles.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2013411 10-May-2018 13:56

MikeB4:

Yes some families pay less tax than others circa 1/3000 however would we rather see greater poverty and more children at risk?

No. So lets use that $900 million "Winston Bung" right here, where it belongs. Or we could just tax the few some more, if you're a Cullenite.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2013435 10-May-2018 14:44

MikeB4:

Yes some families pay less tax than others circa 1/3000 ...

I'm confused by your comment here. Can you elaborate?

Approximately two thirds of New Zealanders pay no "Net Tax" on their income. (i.e. they receive more in direct cash payments from the government than they pay in income tax) What does 1/3000 mean?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2013459 10-May-2018 15:08

6FIEND:

MikeB4:

Yes some families pay less tax than others circa 1/3000 ...

I'm confused by your comment here. Can you elaborate?

Approximately two thirds of New Zealanders pay no "Net Tax" on their income. (i.e. they receive more in direct cash payments from the government than they pay in income tax) What does 1/3000 mean?

I don't know what that means either, but I'm also not sure where you get the "two thirds" figure from.

This article is dated 2011, and suggests that 44% of NZ households are net tax recipients.

It also excludes GST, which (I haven't done the figures - it's only a quick guess) suggests that $3-4 billion would be recovered from that "net tax recipient" group, which would probably reduce the net tax recipient if GST was included to perhaps 25% or less.

Elect me as benevolent dictator, and I'd get rid of WFF and accommodation supplements overnight - as I think they're a fundamentally flawed band-aid interference in the failed market - which encourages dependency on the state and a massive bureaucracy to support it. But some massive structural reforms would be needed to eliminate the reality that far too many people can't survive on their earnings in our high-cost economy.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2013466 10-May-2018 15:24

Fred99:

I don't know what that means either, but I'm also not sure where you get the "two thirds" figure from.

This article is dated 2011, and suggests that 44% of NZ households are net tax recipients.

It also excludes GST, which (I haven't done the figures - it's only a quick guess) suggests that $3-4 billion would be recovered from that "net tax recipient" group, which would probably reduce the net tax recipient if GST was included to perhaps 25% or less.

Elect me as benevolent dictator, and I'd get rid of WFF and accommodation supplements overnight - as I think they're a fundamentally flawed band-aid interference in the failed market - which encourages dependency on the state and a massive bureaucracy to support it. But some massive structural reforms would be needed to eliminate the reality that far too many people can't survive on their earnings in our high-cost economy.

I worked in this area for years and trust that would be a catastrophic decision with wide reaching damage to our society. And with that I am exiting this discussion.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2013468 10-May-2018 15:29

I don't think the wind-back of WFFTC is a realistic idea, but I can see some merits in rethinking the accommodation supplement once we have built up social housing to a historically proportionate share of total housing stock.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2013494 10-May-2018 16:35

MikeB4:

Fred99:

I don't know what that means either, but I'm also not sure where you get the "two thirds" figure from.

This article is dated 2011, and suggests that 44% of NZ households are net tax recipients.

It also excludes GST, which (I haven't done the figures - it's only a quick guess) suggests that $3-4 billion would be recovered from that "net tax recipient" group, which would probably reduce the net tax recipient if GST was included to perhaps 25% or less.

Elect me as benevolent dictator, and I'd get rid of WFF and accommodation supplements overnight - as I think they're a fundamentally flawed band-aid interference in the failed market - which encourages dependency on the state and a massive bureaucracy to support it. But some massive structural reforms would be needed to eliminate the reality that far too many people can't survive on their earnings in our high-cost economy.

I worked in this area for years and trust that would be a catastrophic decision with wide reaching damage to our society. And with that I am exiting this discussion.

Away you go again making an attempt to have a "last word" on a topic, without defending an opinion or even considering the alternatives - yet saying "trust that would be a catastrophic decision" based on nothing more than the fact that you once worked in the "welfare industry".

And if the figures are to be believed - that approaching half of the nation's households are in fact dependant on welfare - it's a massive problem of proportions never imagined in anybody's wildest dreams when the welfare state was being developed. It's a crazy socialist trap, the amounts paid out are increasing - not reducing - despite near full employment in this country.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2013496 10-May-2018 16:38

GV27:

I don't think the wind-back of WFFTC is a realistic idea, but I can see some merits in rethinking the accommodation supplement once we have built up social housing to a historically proportionate share of total housing stock.

An argument which presumes that the government must be more efficient that the private sector in providing affordable accommodation.

1 | ... | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | ... | 268