Tax Cuts

Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor.

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

If investing please consider our affiliate link for new accounts: Sharesies.

Forums › Finance and wealth management › Tax Cuts

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1790878 29-May-2017 08:12

The first step towards UBI would surely be to give all tax payers a tax free allowance?

I remain unconvinced of the affordability of UBI at any worthwhile level, but that's another kettle of fish.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1790887 29-May-2017 08:41

Geektastic: The first step towards UBI would surely be to give all tax payers a tax free allowance?

I remain unconvinced of the affordability of UBI at any worthwhile level, but that's another kettle of fish.

Isn't Working For Families that "first step"?

Sure it's only if you have dependant kids, and it's scaled so high income earners don't get it, but it was put in place acknowledging that normal families were suffering declining living standards because wage and salary growth in that "middle band" wasn't keeping pace with cost increases. It has bipartisan support.

IMO the fact it was needed is an indictment of failed macro economic policy, it was introduced at a time when there was increasing income and wealth disparity, "trickle-down" wasn't working. Still isn't.

Fortunately for recipients, unlike recipients of other "welfare", at least it's not stigmatised like the dole, sickness benefit, dpb etc.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1790890 29-May-2017 08:58

It's not universal. Why should people with kids benefit more than other people who, for reasons of biology, choice or circumstance, do not have kids?

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1790894 29-May-2017 09:07

Geektastic:

It's not universal. Why should people with kids benefit more than other people who, for reasons of biology, choice or circumstance, do not have kids?

a) People with kids don't benefit; kids do.

b) Kids are people too, and they need resources to survive

c) Any investment in kids (especially education and health) pays off in spades

d) In a few years, we will be dependent on those kids to do work and pay taxes

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1790897 29-May-2017 09:11

Geektastic:

It's not universal. Why should people with kids benefit more than other people who, for reasons of biology, choice or circumstance, do not have kids?

Because there's a notion that innocent children shouldn't have their futures sabotaged by the impact of living in poverty.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1790917 29-May-2017 09:35

Fred99:

Geektastic:

It's not universal. Why should people with kids benefit more than other people who, for reasons of biology, choice or circumstance, do not have kids?

Because there's a notion that innocent children shouldn't have their futures sabotaged by the impact of living in poverty.

I prefer the one that says that if you can't feed them, don't breed them.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1790956 29-May-2017 10:16

Handle9:

If you are terminally ill the private system tells you, sorry nothing we can do for you, go public. Same if you need specialised imaging like a PET CT. The private system doesnt give you any real advantage if you have a condition which is immediately life threatening.

The best specialists work in both systems but predominantly in the public system because the public system invests a great deal in training which is only paid for if the consultant works in the public system.

If you have elective needs, which can be seriously debilitating, it's a different story and that is where private health insurance is great.

If you've just been diagnosed with a serious medical situation, you are going public - at least initially. That's because the private system in NZ is smaller and so has less capability.

But what about early detection?

Private healthcare services enable screening for some diseases the public system does not provide - or provides only poorly.

For some diseases private also provides earlier intervention than the public system. Some conditions have to be more advanced to get public sector assessment, or you wait longer - both of these decrease your chances of a good outcome. not to mention the additional emotional stress.

I'm basing this on direct experience.

The public health system screens for two serious diseases quite well - breast cancer and cervical cancer.

But where are the comparative national screening programmes for bowel cancer or melanoma?

Mike

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.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1790964 29-May-2017 10:29

Fred99:

Wiggum:

Government needs rich people and their taxes more than it needs the middle class.

Absolute twaddle.

About 85% of total revenue from income tax is paid by people earning less than $150k, only about 15% from people earning over $150k.

(that data a few years ago from a treasury paper, but it won't have changed much)

"Rich people" might contribute more as a % of their income due to tax brackets. There are far fewer "rich people" around than many people seem to believe.

IIRC if you're earning >$150k, you're in the top 5% of wage/salary earners. Could be a distorted view of that in this forum, as many work in IT, which on average is a highly paid industry.

So you're complaining that this top 5% of people only pay 15% of the tax? Those earning less should be thankful for that subsidy as they obviously can't pay their own way without it.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1790968 29-May-2017 10:34

MikeAqua:

Handle9:

If you are terminally ill the private system tells you, sorry nothing we can do for you, go public. Same if you need specialised imaging like a PET CT. The private system doesnt give you any real advantage if you have a condition which is immediately life threatening.

The best specialists work in both systems but predominantly in the public system because the public system invests a great deal in training which is only paid for if the consultant works in the public system.

If you have elective needs, which can be seriously debilitating, it's a different story and that is where private health insurance is great.

If you've just been diagnosed with a serious medical situation, you are going public - at least initially. That's because the private system in NZ is smaller and so has less capability.

But what about early detection?

Private healthcare services enable screening for some diseases the public system does not provide - or provides only poorly.

For some diseases private also provides earlier intervention than the public system. Some conditions have to be more advanced to get public sector assessment, or you wait longer - both of these decrease your chances of a good outcome. not to mention the additional emotional stress.

I'm basing this on direct experience.

The public health system screens for two serious diseases quite well - breast cancer and cervical cancer.

But where are the comparative national screening programmes for bowel cancer or melanoma?

Yip pretty sure that molemapping in NZ is covered by my private healthcare.

Sure the public system will cover you "once have the big C". But thats too late IMO. Plenty of other examples too.

blackjack17

1705 posts

Uber Geek

#1790970 29-May-2017 10:35

Geektastic:

Fred99:

Geektastic:

It's not universal. Why should people with kids benefit more than other people who, for reasons of biology, choice or circumstance, do not have kids?

Because there's a notion that innocent children shouldn't have their futures sabotaged by the impact of living in poverty.

I prefer the one that says that if you can't feed them, don't breed them.

So the solution is to punish the children of poor people until they learn not to have children?

Also worth noting that they may have been able to afford children when they had them but their circumstances have changed.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1790972 29-May-2017 10:41

frankv:

tdgeek:

The only real benefit is if you need elective surgery and its not life threatening, your in, and not on a a waiting list.

By definition, elective surgery is something you don't need and is not life threatening.

It's not. In many situations what's classed as elective surgery would actually allow people to return to work or prevent long term effects of a non-life threatening medical condition. It's not something you "don't need". It's "preventative maintenance".

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1790973 29-May-2017 10:41

blackjack17:

Geektastic:

Fred99:

Geektastic:

It's not universal. Why should people with kids benefit more than other people who, for reasons of biology, choice or circumstance, do not have kids?

Because there's a notion that innocent children shouldn't have their futures sabotaged by the impact of living in poverty.

I prefer the one that says that if you can't feed them, don't breed them.

So the solution is to punish the children of poor people until they learn not to have children?

Also worth noting that they may have been able to afford children when they had them but their circumstances have changed.

Well as hard as it sounds, that is natures/evolution's way of dealing with things like this.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1790977 29-May-2017 10:45

Fred99:

Well that's kind of expecting politician of any flavour to think in timescales beyond election cycles.

It's actually why China might eat our lunch despite (or because of) lack of democracy. If you forgive some contentious human rights issues, they're as close to benevolent dictatorship as any large nation has ever been. And they have plans, the 5 year plan, then 10, 50 and 100 year plan.

Some? You mean effective enslavement of the general populace for the sole benefit of the elite? There's nothing benevolent about it.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1790991 29-May-2017 10:59

I don't want those tax cuts to extend to me. I don't need/want a tax cut. I would like people on lower incomes to pay less tax.

But I don't want to pay more tax.

I would like to see companies pay more tax ... I have never understood why companies are taxed on profit - it enables complex tax dodging behaviour. PAYE earners are taxed on revenue, whether they make a loss or profit for the year.

I suppose GST could be considered a tax on business revenue, but ultimately it's paid by the end consumer.

what if company tax was abolished and we transitioned to a point where every company paid tax on every single dollar of revenue (at a low rate)?

Mike

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1791008 29-May-2017 11:24

Wiggum:

blackjack17:

Geektastic:

Fred99:

Geektastic:

It's not universal. Why should people with kids benefit more than other people who, for reasons of biology, choice or circumstance, do not have kids?

Because there's a notion that innocent children shouldn't have their futures sabotaged by the impact of living in poverty.

I prefer the one that says that if you can't feed them, don't breed them.

So the solution is to punish the children of poor people until they learn not to have children?

Also worth noting that they may have been able to afford children when they had them but their circumstances have changed.

Well as hard as it sounds, that is natures/evolution's way of dealing with things like this.

That's possibly one of the most disturbing things I've read in a while.

It's an interesting parallel to discussions in another recent thread regarding religious fundamentalism. This post is a good example to show that fundamentalism comes in many different forms, all of which I find unpalatable...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11