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 | ... | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | ... | 268

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2050659 6-Jul-2018 16:32

My wife earns well through hard work, unfortunately due to my medical condition I am unable to work and have no income but she is unable to claim me as a dependent.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2050661 6-Jul-2018 16:37

I think there were practical reasons why income splitting wasn't continued (IIRC it was allowed way back in the past). People would probably be incentivised to "income split" by claiming to be in a "relationship" when they weren't. I mean why wouldn't you give it a go? It would then be up to the government to disprove. It's bad enough (IMO) the government prys into relationship status for all kinds of reasons - it should be none of their bloody business as a general rule - but accepted and tolerated in certain cases, residency, benefit payments etc.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2050664 6-Jul-2018 16:43

MikeB4:

My wife earns well through hard work, unfortunately due to my medical condition I am unable to work and have no income but she is unable to claim me as a dependent.

I realise that, but I still don't think you've got a right to bleat about the amount of tax she pays when by extrapolation - your household income must easily put you in the top 5%, and you're living in a country that manages to provide a reasonable public welfare and health system, free or low cost education, but manages to do this whilst having some of the lowest marginal tax rates for high income earners in the civilised world. IIRC the top marginal tax rate in NZ is one of the lowest in the OECD. There's bugger all to complain about WRT marginal tax rates for high income earners in NZ.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2050795 6-Jul-2018 19:22

Fred99:

MikeB4:

My wife earns well through hard work, unfortunately due to my medical condition I am unable to work and have no income but she is unable to claim me as a dependent.

I realise that, but I still don't think you've got a right to bleat about the amount of tax she pays when by extrapolation - your household income must easily put you in the top 5%, and you're living in a country that manages to provide a reasonable public welfare and health system, free or low cost education, but manages to do this whilst having some of the lowest marginal tax rates for high income earners in the civilised world. IIRC the top marginal tax rate in NZ is one of the lowest in the OECD. There's bugger all to complain about WRT marginal tax rates for high income earners in NZ.

Mike simply responded to my post. There is no need to be negative toward him for being honest. It is not your place to decide who has a right and who hasnt. So sad.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2050866 6-Jul-2018 22:25

Fred99:
I think there were practical reasons why income splitting wasn't continued (IIRC it was allowed way back in the past). People would probably be incentivised to "income split" by claiming to be in a "relationship" when they weren't. I mean why wouldn't you give it a go? It would then be up to the government to disprove. It's bad enough (IMO) the government prys into relationship status for all kinds of reasons - it should be none of their bloody business as a general rule - but accepted and tolerated in certain cases, residency, benefit payments etc.

Simple. Just make it a requirement that to income split. You have to be either married / in a civil union. Or have kids with your partner. Easy to answer yes / no to those questions.

There are already laws against sham marriages, and due to the relationship properties act. You would be silly to marry just for the income splitting (assuming no actual relationship). As both parties would then be joint owners of all their assets.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2050941 7-Jul-2018 08:38

Pumpedd:

Mike simply responded to my post. There is no need to be negative toward him for being honest. It is not your place to decide who has a right and who hasnt. So sad.

Depends on what one cares about in life. I take from the title of this thread that this is meant to be about political discussions where claims made should have some basis in fact. Mike's claim that his wife was taxed horribly has absolutely zero basis in fact.

A ten second Google search would reveal to anyone who cares to look that relative to other similar countries (and this is all that matters if we were concerned about facts - since we are all homo sapiens, have to currently live on Earth, and typically within a nation state), high earners in NZ are not taxed horribly. Both my wife and I paid out similar amounts in tax to his wife last year and we have zero complaints. Why? Research from people like Herbert Simon (a Nobel Prize-winning economist) has revealed that approximately 90% of income earned by individuals from first world countries arise primarily from common social goods. It's externalities in regards to being able to access such social goods required to better oneself etc that primarily decides one's lot in life.

Even if one doesn't accept that, people like us choose to look up on the internet and actually realise that NZers aren't taxed that back.

End of story.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2050973 7-Jul-2018 10:01

Aredwood:
Fred99:

I think there were practical reasons why income splitting wasn't continued (IIRC it was allowed way back in the past). People would probably be incentivised to "income split" by claiming to be in a "relationship" when they weren't. I mean why wouldn't you give it a go? It would then be up to the government to disprove. It's bad enough (IMO) the government prys into relationship status for all kinds of reasons - it should be none of their bloody business as a general rule - but accepted and tolerated in certain cases, residency, benefit payments etc.

Simple. Just make it a requirement that to income split. You have to be either married / in a civil union. Or have kids with your partner. Easy to answer yes / no to those questions.

There are already laws against sham marriages, and due to the relationship properties act. You would be silly to marry just for the income splitting (assuming no actual relationship). As both parties would then be joint owners of all their assets.

It won't work. You don't need to be in a marriage or civil union for the relationship properties act to apply, and if say a couple of people who flat together decide to marry or formalise a civil union, then is IRD going to be obliged to check that they sleep in the same bed to verify that they aren't cheating - or just take it on face value?

Yes - it happens anyway with benefits etc, that intrusion into people's private lives tolerated by pragmatic need, but if a government wanted the automatic right to pry into the private lives of damned near everybody is a different matter.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2050994 7-Jul-2018 10:58

dejadeadnz:

Pumpedd:

Mike simply responded to my post. There is no need to be negative toward him for being honest. It is not your place to decide who has a right and who hasnt. So sad.

Depends on what one cares about in life. I take from the title of this thread that this is meant to be about political discussions where claims made should have some basis in fact. Mike's claim that his wife was taxed horribly has absolutely zero basis in fact.

A ten second Google search would reveal to anyone who cares to look that relative to other similar countries (and this is all that matters if we were concerned about facts - since we are all homo sapiens, have to currently live on Earth, and typically within a nation state), high earners in NZ are not taxed horribly. Both my wife and I paid out similar amounts in tax to his wife last year and we have zero complaints. Why? Research from people like Herbert Simon (a Nobel Prize-winning economist) has revealed that approximately 90% of income earned by individuals from first world countries arise primarily from common social goods. It's externalities in regards to being able to access such social goods required to better oneself etc that primarily decides one's lot in life.

Even if one doesn't accept that, people like us choose to look up on the internet and actually realise that NZers aren't taxed that back.

End of story.

OKay.

I was not stating a general fact I was responding to a question "who pays tax" my answer was my wife does........ FACT

Secondly I was saying that the tax we pay seem high by our feelings and that me cannot split our income.......FACT

This will be my last response to this.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2051002 7-Jul-2018 11:28

MikeB4:

Secondly I was saying that the tax we pay seem high by our feelings and that me cannot split our income.......FACT

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Just to correct you: the only fact above is that you can't split her income. Your feelings about how high the tax rate is should be of no moment to anyone concerned with evidence and facts. Seriously, you can't have any meaningful discourse when people simply assert a feeling and try to give normative status to it, i.e. make that feeling sacrosanct and beyond reproach. Well, I suppose you can... if one wanted to just reduce every debate to the equivalent quality of kids shouting at each other.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2051004 7-Jul-2018 11:30

We already have income splitting for people who actually need it as part of WFFTC calculations. I don't see why people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars should be able to split income so one person can stay out home when there are lots of households where people have to slog their guts out to make ends meet.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2051078 7-Jul-2018 13:24

Aredwood:
Fred99:

I think there were practical reasons why income splitting wasn't continued (IIRC it was allowed way back in the past). People would probably be incentivised to "income split" by claiming to be in a "relationship" when they weren't. I mean why wouldn't you give it a go? It would then be up to the government to disprove. It's bad enough (IMO) the government prys into relationship status for all kinds of reasons - it should be none of their bloody business as a general rule - but accepted and tolerated in certain cases, residency, benefit payments etc.

Simple. Just make it a requirement that to income split. You have to be either married / in a civil union. Or have kids with your partner. Easy to answer yes / no to those questions.

There are already laws against sham marriages, and due to the relationship properties act. You would be silly to marry just for the income splitting (assuming no actual relationship). As both parties would then be joint owners of all their assets.

Just make it so that you have to be in a marriage or civil union. Using the tax system to recognise and reward commitment is socially useful.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2051079 7-Jul-2018 13:25

GV27:

We already have income splitting for people who actually need it as part of WFFTC calculations. I don't see why people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars should be able to split income so one person can stay out home when there are lots of households where people have to slog their guts out to make ends meet.

What has one got to do with the other? Why should people who have the smarts to earn well be penalised just because some other people do not?

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2051090 7-Jul-2018 13:49

Thanks for another glib one-liner. Inherent within the one-liner is an assertion that somehow no social capital/common good contributed to an individual's success, which is just demonstrably false for anyone paying attention. Again, the biggest genius of financial investment in human history -- Warren Buffet -- has been on record saying that he wouldn't have had anywhere near the success that he has had if he were a Bangladeshi. Just engage your mind for a moment: if you didn't have the guarantee of personal security and freedom that you enjoy daily, would you have the same opportunities to make money?

Case closed.

[Mod edit (MF): removed unnecessary personal comment]

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2051094 7-Jul-2018 14:06

It's actually time that the extreme right-wingers and wannabe libertarians of this world look past the tips of their noses for one moment and realise the monumental danger that the continuing escalation of inequality represents to not only the world (since most of these people only think of themselves) but to themselves and their families. Look at countries and/or cities of this world where inequality is high and see how that tends to correlate with high crime rates, lack of personal security, and all kinds of other nasties. Yes, correlation does not equate to causation. But again just think about it: when people get desperate and/or angry enough, do you really expect them to play nicely?

If extending a bit of empathy to others or engaging in a bit of abstract thinking is too difficult, just think about what kind of people typically voted for Donald Trump. Life's not a zero-sum game where to have success and joy means that you have to keep others down. Success doesn't per se require a disproportionate accumulation (or even appropriation) of societal or world resources. Everyone will get old one day and die -- even if you don't care about making the world a better place, try not to foul up the world with the stench of your selfish indifference.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2051102 7-Jul-2018 14:28

Geektastic:

GV27:

We already have income splitting for people who actually need it as part of WFFTC calculations. I don't see why people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars should be able to split income so one person can stay out home when there are lots of households where people have to slog their guts out to make ends meet.

What has one got to do with the other? Why should people who have the smarts to earn well be penalised just because some other people do not?

How are you being penalised? Is being asked to contribute towards the state that allowed you to monetize your "smarts" really being penalised? If you don't pay, who should cover your end?

1 | ... | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | ... | 268