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

112 posts

Master Geek

#1791013 29-May-2017 11:34

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.

Poor people have existed for a very long time. People were forced out of their lands, some were slaves, some had to pay unfair taxes to kings, the list is very long. That has nothing to do with natural selection and evolution. It's fine if you have a different values, but you are wrong about that.

Paul1977

5047 posts

Uber Geek

#1791019 29-May-2017 11:45

Wiggum:

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.

I just found out my Southern Cross insurance doesn't cover molemapping.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1791022 29-May-2017 11:53

Paul1977:

Wiggum:

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.

I just found out my Southern Cross insurance doesn't cover molemapping.

Thats a shame. I Wonder if they see it as something else?

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1791023 29-May-2017 11:56

gsr:

Poor people have existed for a very long time. People were forced out of their lands, some were slaves, some had to pay unfair taxes to kings, the list is very long. That has nothing to do with natural selection and evolution. It's fine if you have a different values, but you are wrong about that.

And poor people persist in so-called progressive, socialist economies. But arguably they suffer less in those countries.

Generally the countries that manage to afford wrap around care have the massive financial benefits of industries that NZ socialists love to hate - oil, mineral, agriculture, big pharma, big food, big alcohol...

Cases in point: Netherlands, Norway, Belgium etc. They also tend to be former colonial powers, or worse.

The countries doing badly by their most unfortunate citizens, tend to be former colonies.

Our % tax take isn't low. It's just from a low revenue economy.

Our challenge is: -

How do we get our per citizen revenue up and capture enough tax at current rates to invest in the services we need?

How do we do this when popular opinion is often anti-business, anti-development, anti-resource-utilisation and anti-investment?

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1791026 29-May-2017 12:04

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.

No it's not - not any more than it's nature's way to deal with wealthy aristocrats with the guillotine as in France, or shot, clubbed, or bayoneted like the Romanovs.

As for "evolution" you clearly don't understand the concept of what "the fittest" means.

Your sick views expressed above are only a step short of endorsing genocide.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1791027 29-May-2017 12:04

jonathan18:

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

Life is cruel. And nature even more so. Children are extremely reliant on their parents. If the parents stuff up, then hows it the taxpayers fault? And why should taxpayers suffer for it? parents should be made to accept more responsibility of their kids, no matter the circumstances. There is no excuse for children to be living in poverty in NZ. Its not a state problem, its a parent problem.

gsr:

Poor people have existed for a very long time. People were forced out of their lands, some were slaves, some had to pay unfair taxes to kings, the list is very long. That has nothing to do with natural selection and evolution. It's fine if you have a different values, but you are wrong about that.

So you saying that the environment (because its stuffed up by humans in certain instances), does not qualify for the process of natural selection?

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1791029 29-May-2017 12:07

jonathan18:

Wiggum:

blackjack17:

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 a troll. Or an alt.right.right.right.right loony. In either case, best just to ignore until it goes away.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

blackjack17

1705 posts

Uber Geek

#1791030 29-May-2017 12:08

MikeAqua:

gsr:

Poor people have existed for a very long time. People were forced out of their lands, some were slaves, some had to pay unfair taxes to kings, the list is very long. That has nothing to do with natural selection and evolution. It's fine if you have a different values, but you are wrong about that.

And poor people persist in so-called progressive, socialist economies. But arguably they suffer less in those countries.

Generally the countries that manage to afford wrap around care have the massive financial benefits of industries that NZ socialists love to hate - oil, mineral, agriculture, big pharma, big food, big alcohol...

Cases in point: Netherlands, Norway, Belgium etc. They also tend to be former colonial powers, or worse.

The countries doing badly by their most unfortunate citizens, tend to be former colonies.

Our % tax take isn't low. It's just from a low revenue economy.

Our challenge is: -

How do we get our per citizen revenue up and capture enough tax at current rates to invest in the services we need?

How do we do this when popular opinion is often anti-business, anti-development, anti-resource-utilisation and anti-investment?

I would argue our tax rate is rather low

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

of the countries you mentioned top rates are (I don't know what the pay brackets are)

Netherlands, 52% with up to 20% gst

Norway, 49.6 with up to 25%gst

Belgium 64% with up to 21%gst

compare this with our 33% and 15% gst

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1791045 29-May-2017 12:26

blackjack17:

MikeAqua:

gsr:

Poor people have existed for a very long time. People were forced out of their lands, some were slaves, some had to pay unfair taxes to kings, the list is very long. That has nothing to do with natural selection and evolution. It's fine if you have a different values, but you are wrong about that.

And poor people persist in so-called progressive, socialist economies. But arguably they suffer less in those countries.

Generally the countries that manage to afford wrap around care have the massive financial benefits of industries that NZ socialists love to hate - oil, mineral, agriculture, big pharma, big food, big alcohol...

Cases in point: Netherlands, Norway, Belgium etc. They also tend to be former colonial powers, or worse.

The countries doing badly by their most unfortunate citizens, tend to be former colonies.

Our % tax take isn't low. It's just from a low revenue economy.

Our challenge is: -

How do we get our per citizen revenue up and capture enough tax at current rates to invest in the services we need?

How do we do this when popular opinion is often anti-business, anti-development, anti-resource-utilisation and anti-investment?

I would argue our tax rate is rather low

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

of the countries you mentioned top rates are (I don't know what the pay brackets are)

Netherlands, 52% with up to 20% gst

Norway, 49.6 with up to 25%gst

Belgium 64% with up to 21%gst

compare this with our 33% and 15% gst

And how do our incomes compare?

There's little point in taxing people more when their incomes are not that high. Equally there is little point in reducing the incentive to earn more, bringing with it as it usually does, far less reliance on the state.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1791116 29-May-2017 14:26

You have to look at GDP per capita and % GDP as tax. If we had Norway's GDP at our tax rate (% GDP), crudely speaking the government would have twice as much tax revenue to spend. Imagine the social spending achievable.

Mike

blackjack17

1705 posts

Uber Geek

#1791135 29-May-2017 15:00

Geektastic:

blackjack17:

MikeAqua:

gsr:

Poor people have existed for a very long time. People were forced out of their lands, some were slaves, some had to pay unfair taxes to kings, the list is very long. That has nothing to do with natural selection and evolution. It's fine if you have a different values, but you are wrong about that.

And poor people persist in so-called progressive, socialist economies. But arguably they suffer less in those countries.

Generally the countries that manage to afford wrap around care have the massive financial benefits of industries that NZ socialists love to hate - oil, mineral, agriculture, big pharma, big food, big alcohol...

Cases in point: Netherlands, Norway, Belgium etc. They also tend to be former colonial powers, or worse.

The countries doing badly by their most unfortunate citizens, tend to be former colonies.

Our % tax take isn't low. It's just from a low revenue economy.

Our challenge is: -

How do we get our per citizen revenue up and capture enough tax at current rates to invest in the services we need?

How do we do this when popular opinion is often anti-business, anti-development, anti-resource-utilisation and anti-investment?

I would argue our tax rate is rather low

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

of the countries you mentioned top rates are (I don't know what the pay brackets are)

Netherlands, 52% with up to 20% gst

Norway, 49.6 with up to 25%gst

Belgium 64% with up to 21%gst

compare this with our 33% and 15% gst

And how do our incomes compare?

There's little point in taxing people more when their incomes are not that high. Equally there is little point in reducing the incentive to earn more, bringing with it as it usually does, far less reliance on the state.

Wouldn't it make sense to tax those that do make more, more?

I don't know a top tax rate at say 40% for those over $100,000.

This is still below Australia, the US and most European countries.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#1791152 29-May-2017 15:09

blackjack17:

Wouldn't it make sense to tax those that do make more, more?

I don't know a top tax rate at say 40% for those over $100,000.

This is still below Australia, the US and most European countries.

Yes, but that would involve a bunch of turkeys voting in favour of Christmas...

blackjack17

1705 posts

Uber Geek

#1791156 29-May-2017 15:13

MikeAqua:

You have to look at GDP per capita and % GDP as tax. If we had Norway's GDP at our tax rate (% GDP), crudely speaking the government would have twice as much tax revenue to spend. Imagine the social spending achievable.

Belgium has a 47% tax to GDP ratio, is a high tax to GDP ratio good or bad? as it looks like most European countries have a high tax to GDP ratio where as most of the third world countries seem to have low tax to GDP ratios (very roughly speaking). We seem roughly in the middle

If you are simply saying that we need to grow our economy then I don't think that many would argue with you. One of the ways in which we could grow an economy would be to have a highly educated, healthy workforce which would need an increase in social spending.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

nzkiwiman

2585 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1791169 29-May-2017 15:31

Geektastic:

It's still not much though, is it? $48k after tax is not enough to pay a big mortgage even if you devote 100% of it to doing that!

As someone who has just gone through the process of trying to get a mortgage on $48k, I can tell you that I needed 90% of my after tax income to pay for the mortgage, rates and insurance in order to get a house
Bills and food did not fit into the remaining 10%.

In order to be able to afford everything else, I started dropping what I was looking at for a mortgage - I got down to a 150k mortgage before I was satisfied that I could pay all my bills and eat.
However $150 + my current deposit would not allow me to actually purchase a house

Lostja

239 posts

Master Geek

#1791328 29-May-2017 18:55

blackjack17:
MikeAqua:

gsr:

Poor people have existed for a very long time. People were forced out of their lands, some were slaves, some had to pay unfair taxes to kings, the list is very long. That has nothing to do with natural selection and evolution. It's fine if you have a different values, but you are wrong about that.

And poor people persist in so-called progressive, socialist economies. But arguably they suffer less in those countries.

Generally the countries that manage to afford wrap around care have the massive financial benefits of industries that NZ socialists love to hate - oil, mineral, agriculture, big pharma, big food, big alcohol...

Cases in point: Netherlands, Norway, Belgium etc. They also tend to be former colonial powers, or worse.

The countries doing badly by their most unfortunate citizens, tend to be former colonies.

Our % tax take isn't low. It's just from a low revenue economy.

Our challenge is: -

How do we get our per citizen revenue up and capture enough tax at current rates to invest in the services we need?

How do we do this when popular opinion is often anti-business, anti-development, anti-resource-utilisation and anti-investment?

I would argue our tax rate is rather low

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

of the countries you mentioned top rates are (I don't know what the pay brackets are)

Netherlands, 52% with up to 20% gst

Norway, 49.6 with up to 25%gst

Belgium 64% with up to 21%gst

compare this with our 33% and 15% gst

Unlike NZ most of these have a tax free first bracket, and in the Netherlands the interest you pay on a mortgage is tax deductible. The Netherlands has different gst for different products. Just comparing the highest bracket doesn't tell you the whole story.

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