Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

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

Forums › Politics › Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

1 | ... | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | ... | 188

17125 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3191859 7-Feb-2024 13:23

NZ fails to back a deep sea trawling compromise proposal originally introduced by NZ

Newsroom: Following orders from the new Government, New Zealand successfully blocked consensus on a measure to restrict bottom trawling in the South Pacific at an international forum that ended at the weekend.

One giant step backwards for fishing stock conservation and NZ diplomacy.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79278 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3191860 7-Feb-2024 13:24

The government of "Let's undo everything done by a previous government".

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#3191919 7-Feb-2024 13:50

freitasm:

sen8or:

It seems socially acceptable to group all "rich people" together as tax dodgers who are out for themselves and care nothing for anything around them, but the reverse of that is "socially unaware"?

I don't think either label / grouping is helpful or constructive.

You are right that generalisations are bad. That's why a fair tax policy that equally tax everyone to levels that allow those who can afford more pay more, those who afford less pay less is needed, so everyone contributes to their capability.

The idea of tax is not to feed the government machine. It's to provide services that the whole population can benefit from - including visitors (who are paying GST when they buy products and services while here).

Mindlessly defending one group that could afford to pay more is what I think is being socially unaware.

Alongside of "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist" is political operatives convincing the poorest sectors of the population that a tax that would in no way affect them - indeed would benefit them - is bad.

And if a Govt actually did provide services the whole population can benefit from, I think people would be a lot less adverse to paying taxes, but they (and I'll include all Govts here) always have their pet projects / obsessions that end up being a bottomless pit of money that achieves very little

Do we also need to widen our view away from simply tax, to complete economic benefit to the country, what would that equation look like? The top .1% or the top .1% (which is the group that is seemingly targeted) generate their wealth from a mix of areas including investments in businesses (either through stockmarket or privately held company's) and property (residential and commercial). The businesses they invest in, employ labour and capital which all feeds the economy, the property (particularly commercial) provides space for other businesses to operate, employing labour and capital again for the benefit of the economy etc etc etc.

Could they afford to pay more tax, most likely, but I'd hazard a guess that their total contribution to the NZ economy is worth far more to the country than an extra few million in tax revenues

Paul1977

5043 posts

Uber Geek

#3191925 7-Feb-2024 14:04

freitasm:

You are right that generalisations are bad. That's why a fair tax policy that equally tax everyone to levels that allow those who can afford more pay more, those who afford less pay less is needed, so everyone contributes to their capability.

The idea of tax is not to feed the government machine. It's to provide services that the whole population can benefit from - including visitors (who are paying GST when they buy products and services while here).

Mindlessly defending one group that could afford to pay more is what I think is being socially unaware.

Alongside of "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist" is political operatives convincing the poorest sectors of the population that a tax that would in no way affect them - indeed would benefit them - is bad.

Your use of the word equally doesn't belong. You can't tax people at different rates and call it equal. I'd argue you can't call it fair either.

Just look at PAYE. Even if we had a flat tax rate, an individual who earns $100,000/annum would still be paying twice the tax of what someone earning $50,000 would. And, of course, with our progressive tax system the $100,000 earner pays considerably more double the tax than the $50,000 earner because they are taxed at a disproportionately higher rate.

It may be socially responsible, it me be economically required, but it most definitely isn't "fair" from any objective standpoint.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79278 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3191936 7-Feb-2024 14:22

Paul1977:

freitasm:

You are right that generalisations are bad. That's why a fair tax policy that equally tax everyone to levels that allow those who can afford more pay more, those who afford less pay less is needed, so everyone contributes to their capability.

The idea of tax is not to feed the government machine. It's to provide services that the whole population can benefit from - including visitors (who are paying GST when they buy products and services while here).

Mindlessly defending one group that could afford to pay more is what I think is being socially unaware.

Alongside of "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist" is political operatives convincing the poorest sectors of the population that a tax that would in no way affect them - indeed would benefit them - is bad.

Your use of the word equally doesn't belong. You can't tax people at different rates and call it equal. I'd argue you can't call it fair either.

Just look at PAYE. Even if we had a flat tax rate, an individual who earns $100,000/annum would still be paying twice the tax of what someone earning $50,000 would. And, of course, with our progressive tax system the $100,000 earner pays considerably more double the tax than the $50,000 earner because they are taxed at a disproportionately higher rate.

It may be socially responsible, it me be economically required, but it most definitely isn't "fair" from any objective standpoint.

I did not write EQUALLY in the sense of "same tax bracket" but "EQUALLY" as in everyone pays tax.

But thanks for your (wrong interpretation) of my writing.

It would be better than go deep into assumptions to ask first, clarifying the point and then argue it.

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3191954 7-Feb-2024 15:03

sen8or:

And if a Govt actually did provide services the whole population can benefit from, I think people would be a lot less adverse to paying taxes,

I think you'll find "provide services" is a pretty subjective thing. The people we contend don't pay their fair share of tax here probably don't spend a whole lot of time in a queue at WINZ so the views of large scale National and Act supporters are probably quite strongly of the view that anything that gets spent there is a waste of tax dollars.

Alternatively one could suggest that although we spend vast amounts of tax dollars on farmers (without even getting into ag still not being in the ETS which is effectively an additional giant subsidy), New Zealanders pay far more for a leg of NZ Lamb at the supermarket than Australians do... so they aren't doing any special favours for the country that supports them so much.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

michaelmurfy

meow
13244 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3191957 7-Feb-2024 15:17

Michael Murphy | https://murfy.nz
Referral Links: Quic Broadband (use R122101E7CV7Q for free setup)

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by subscribing.
Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

Quic Broadband

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

Paul1977

5043 posts

Uber Geek

#3191965 7-Feb-2024 15:27

freitasm:

I did not write EQUALLY in the sense of "same tax bracket" but "EQUALLY" as in everyone pays tax.

But thanks for your (wrong interpretation) of my writing.

It would be better than go deep into assumptions to ask first, clarifying the point and then argue it.

Then you're definition of EQUALLY is pretty strange.

SaltyNZ

8230 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3191968 7-Feb-2024 15:37

michaelmurfy:

OUCH

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79278 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3191970 7-Feb-2024 15:41

Paul1977:

freitasm:

I did not write EQUALLY in the sense of "same tax bracket" but "EQUALLY" as in everyone pays tax.

But thanks for your (wrong interpretation) of my writing.

It would be better than go deep into assumptions to ask first, clarifying the point and then argue it.

Then you're definition of EQUALLY is pretty strange.

Or your definition of "EQUALLY" is off:

So what does treating people equally actually mean? Twinkl NZ

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#3191972 7-Feb-2024 15:57

SaltyNZ:

sen8or:

And if a Govt actually did provide services the whole population can benefit from, I think people would be a lot less adverse to paying taxes,

I think you'll find "provide services" is a pretty subjective thing. The people we contend don't pay their fair share of tax here probably don't spend a whole lot of time in a queue at WINZ so the views of large scale National and Act supporters are probably quite strongly of the view that anything that gets spent there is a waste of tax dollars.

Alternatively one could suggest that although we spend vast amounts of tax dollars on farmers (without even getting into ag still not being in the ETS which is effectively an additional giant subsidy), New Zealanders pay far more for a leg of NZ Lamb at the supermarket than Australians do... so they aren't doing any special favours for the country that supports them so much.

The "vast amounts of tax dollars spent on farmers" at least has a positive return for the country, provides jobs, feeds millions, one of our largest export earners bringing hundreds of millions into the economy. Other services may be subjective, but provision of a somewhat capable health and education sector shouldn't be too much to ask.

Your comment seems to lump National and Act supporters into the evil capitalist / self centred category, lets not get into more generalisations about the nature of politics and who supports which party for what reasons, that will take the thread wildly off track and likely bring out the ban hammer.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#3191974 7-Feb-2024 16:06

freitasm:

You are right that generalisations are bad. That's why a fair tax policy that equally tax everyone to levels that allow those who can afford more pay more, those who afford less pay less is needed, so everyone contributes to their capability.

The idea of tax is not to feed the government machine. It's to provide services that the whole population can benefit from - including visitors (who are paying GST when they buy products and services while here).

Mindlessly defending one group that could afford to pay more is what I think is being socially unaware.

Alongside of "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist" is political operatives convincing the poorest sectors of the population that a tax that would in no way affect them - indeed would benefit them - is bad.

So if you can refer to Table 4.1 on Pg31 of the HWI Research Project where would you say the deficiencies or inequities are in our taxation system?

How would you change them such that it meets your definition of a fair tax policy.

https://www.ird.govt.nz/-/media/project/ir/home/documents/about-us/high-wealth-research-project/hwi-research-project/final-report-april-2023/report-high-wealth-individuals-research-project.pdf

I contend that we dont have a shortage of tax revenue we have a problem with how we spend it.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3191985 7-Feb-2024 16:23

SaltyNZ:
ockel:

But I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

And I think your insistence that we should never do anything until we discover the one single change that will magically fix everything at once perpetuates the situation we find ourselves in.

You’ve wrongly alleged this about numerous people in this thread. If you’re going to make the allegation you should quote them saying it.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3192046 7-Feb-2024 17:56

freitasm:

You are right that generalisations are bad. That's why a fair tax policy that equally tax everyone to levels that allow those who can afford more pay more, those who cannot afford less pay less is needed, so everyone contributes to their capability.

In a nutshell that nails it. Its not a blue/red/green/mauve/dark idea, its just fair.

Look at PDI (Personal Disposable Income) Many people have zero. Some have a lot, in which case its not a loss to share.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3192050 7-Feb-2024 18:02

freitasm: The government of "Let's undo everything done by a previous government".

Your comment could be, and will be seen as a cop out

Ok they do the undo, where is the "do" get NZ back on track, or is that get NZ back ??? Yes, a political answer, but this is beyond a joke. Put politics aside, NAF is full of amateurs, unlike previous N, and the PR machine is the same

1 | ... | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | ... | 188