Gareth Morgan is a genius

Forums › Off topic › Gareth Morgan is a genius

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1685462 9-Dec-2016 19:20

I understand that. My objection is holding out false hope to the below average with crap about 'hard work'. All the hard work in the world will never change their situation. They can better aim for the minimum they can get away with. Maybe then they can at least enjoying fishing on the weekends.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

rmt38

320 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 55
Inactive user

#1685463 9-Dec-2016 19:26

Rikkitic:

I understand that. My objection is holding out false hope to the below average with crap about 'hard work'. All the hard work in the world will never change their situation. They can better aim for the minimum they can get away with. Maybe then they can at least enjoying fishing on the weekends.

What should people say? There are opportunities for them - some might take a chance and start their own business or whatever. It's not like they can't change their situation with.. [insert your phrase]. And "hard work" is the easiest way to hand wave about it. Below average have bettered themselves before, one might arguably point back to Gareth Morgan.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1685465 9-Dec-2016 19:31

Rikkitic:

I understand that. My objection is holding out false hope to the below average with crap about 'hard work'. All the hard work in the world will never change their situation. They can better aim for the minimum they can get away with. Maybe then they can at least enjoying fishing on the weekends.

That is incredibly defeatist. I have a much more optimistic view of the world. I have examples close to me that shows the opposite to your grim view. Someone very close to me left school with no qualifications and returned to work post children and is now earning in excess of $300,000 pa

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

benokobi

936 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 127

ID Verified

#1685472 9-Dec-2016 19:44

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

I understand that. My objection is holding out false hope to the below average with crap about 'hard work'. All the hard work in the world will never change their situation. They can better aim for the minimum they can get away with. Maybe then they can at least enjoying fishing on the weekends.

That is incredibly defeatist. I have a much more optimistic view of the world. I have examples close to me that shows the opposite to your grim view. Someone very close to me left school with no qualifications and returned to work post children and is now earning in excess of $300,000 pa

My Great Uncle started a company with absolutely no qualifications with the purchase of two trucks through hard work, perseverance and some knowledge. And at his death he was still running the business with no formal qualifications doing over 500mil in revenue.

Anythings possible if you have a passion and a bit of luck.

mudguard

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#1685518 9-Dec-2016 20:51

I don't think anyone is disputing that (financial) success can come from different socio-economic situations, though it's probably another topic. It's the fact it is becoming more difficult for perhaps, middle NZers to achieve realistic goals. Because of the way the tax system is structured. I certainly agree that Gareth Morgan is a polarising figure, I have economics bent and have worked for finance companies but have not studied accountancy or economics. In fact most of my work is basically maths. I've read two of his books, The Big Kahuna, and the his climate book, Poles Apart and it makes for interesting reading. But again, his views come across as radically different. But then again, if no one thinks that private debt ratios are a problem then we can keep the status quo.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1685530 9-Dec-2016 21:28

Reciprocity:
Fred99:

Geektastic:

"By comparison, the top 3 per cent of individual income earners, earning more than $150,000 a year, pay 24 per cent of all tax received."

Total tax revenue (Year to June 2016) was $ 74 billion.
24% of that is about $18 billion. I guarantee that the top 3% of income earners, probably fewer than 50,000 people do not contribute $18 billion, or an average of $360,000 in tax each per annum.
Personal income tax is only about < 40% of total tax revenue (the rest is company tax, GST, withholding tax, excises, duties etc., government also make about another $20 billion in dividends, sale of goods (electricity) and services etc).

The 24% figure is 24% of income tax, it's about $7.5 billion and only about 10% of total tax revenue, about 8% of total revenue.

I suspect it's also a "theoretical" figure based on tax which would be payable on gross income rather than what's actually paid on declared taxable income.

That's impressive how you got to "I guarantee" on the back of reasoning like "probably fewer than...", "only about..." and "I Suspect".

The figure quoted (3% pay 24% of tax revenue) is impossible even if you allow a huge margin of error. Estimates are good enough to show that.

It was great story to try to convince the poor that they should be ever so grateful to the rich. Shame that as presented, it simply isn't true. Also a shame that dingbat journalists publish such tripe without taking a few minutes to think about it.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1685534 9-Dec-2016 21:43

mudguard:

I don't think anyone is disputing that (financial) success can come from different socio-economic situations, though it's probably another topic.

No it is on topic. Yes that success can come, however statistically, it's highly improbable, hence the high regard given when somebody from a relatively modest background does "makes good" - such as our PM until Monday.

One of Morgan's objectives from the equity tax is for it to work as a kind of "estate tax" - to prevent accumulation of multigenerational wealth.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1685541 9-Dec-2016 22:14

Fred99:
mudguard:

I don't think anyone is disputing that (financial) success can come from different socio-economic situations, though it's probably another topic.

No it is on topic. Yes that success can come, however statistically, it's highly improbable, hence the high regard given when somebody from a relatively modest background does "makes good" - such as our PM until Monday.

One of Morgan's objectives from the equity tax is for it to work as a kind of "estate tax" - to prevent accumulation of multigenerational wealth.

That all reeks of the old death duties that nearly destroyed the UK heritage and resulted in many estates falling to decay or off shore ownership. His proposal is dangerous, it will not have the results he imagines. We would see a torrent of wealth being transferred offshore which will be extremely bad.

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

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1685542 9-Dec-2016 22:14

MikeB4:

frankv:

Hammerer:

It is not "legalised theft" to avoid tax. It is evading tax that is illegal.

Evading tax is theft. Avoiding tax is legalised theft... if it means you are paying less than your share. "Paying your share" is an ethical decision, not a legal one.

If companies and or individuals make deductions against their tax liability that have been sanctioned by parliament then it is not legalised theft. They are doing precisely what they have been authorised

to do. Now if one wants those deductions stopped one needs to lobby parliament for change in legislation.

Yes, it is legal... that is why I used the word "legalised". Yes, they are doing what they are authorised to do. Yes, if one wants those deductions stopped one needs to lobby parliament for change in legislation... although I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion.

But...

If you know that you're paying less than your fair share of tax, then you are a bludger, picking the pockets of the honest.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1685544 9-Dec-2016 22:23

frankv:
MikeB4:

frankv:

Hammerer:

It is not "legalised theft" to avoid tax. It is evading tax that is illegal.

Evading tax is theft. Avoiding tax is legalised theft... if it means you are paying less than your share. "Paying your share" is an ethical decision, not a legal one.

If companies and or individuals make deductions against their tax liability that have been sanctioned by parliament then it is not legalised theft. They are doing precisely what they have been authorised

to do. Now if one wants those deductions stopped one needs to lobby parliament for change in legislation.

Yes, it is legal... that is why I used the word "legalised". Yes, they are doing what they are authorised to do. Yes, if one wants those deductions stopped one needs to lobby parliament for change in legislation... although I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion.

But...

If you know that you're paying less than your fair share of tax, then you are a bludger, picking the pockets of the honest.

Define a fair share, is it 10%, 20%, 50%. Is it a fair share if all tax payers pay a flat 20%. Is it a fair share if you work harder, and work 60 70 80 hours per week spend a futune on higher education and earn more that you pay a higher percentage.

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

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1685545 9-Dec-2016 22:29

MikeB4:
That all reeks of the old death duties that nearly destroyed the UK heritage and resulted in many estates falling to decay or off shore ownership.

Because their ancestors built houses and castles beyond the ability of their less-capable descendants to finance & maintain, the old aristocracy should be subsidised and supported? I don't think so.

His proposal is dangerous, it will not have the results he imagines. We would see a torrent of wealth being transferred offshore which will be extremely bad.

I agree. Not that we don't already have a torrent of wealth flowing overseas.

Samsung

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

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1685547 9-Dec-2016 22:39

We don't need to subsidise the wealthy we also do not need to fleece them with excessive taxes and other charges. Everyone should pay a flat equal rate of taxation. To do the opposite would wreck our economy, drive up unemployment, kill investment, job creation and growth.

A person on $35,000 doesn't invest in business and new ventures but someone on say $300,000 does.

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

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1685548 9-Dec-2016 22:44

MikeB4:

Define a fair share, is it 10%, 20%, 50%. Is it a fair share if all tax payers pay a flat 20%. Is it a fair share if you work harder, and work 60 70 80 hours per week spend a futune on higher education and earn more that you pay a higher percentage.

OTOH, is it a fair share if you work harder, and work 60 70 80 hours per week, can't spend a fortune on higher education, so you earn the same as someone who works a lot less? I would also argue that wealthier people get more benefits from tax-provided services (e.g. they drive more, they fly more, their wealth is protected by tax-funded police, etc) so they ought to pay more.

And, yes indeed... one person's perception of fair will differ from another's.

In this case, Gareth Morgan himself says he doesn't pay his fair share, so you'll have to ask him what his definition of "fair" is. But I guess he thinks it would be fair if he paid another $300K pa, since (a) that's what he reckons his proposed changes would cost him, and (b) he reckons the changes would make NZ fair.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1685550 9-Dec-2016 22:56

MikeB4:
Fred99:

mudguard:

I don't think anyone is disputing that (financial) success can come from different socio-economic situations, though it's probably another topic.

No it is on topic. Yes that success can come, however statistically, it's highly improbable, hence the high regard given when somebody from a relatively modest background does "makes good" - such as our PM until Monday.

One of Morgan's objectives from the equity tax is for it to work as a kind of "estate tax" - to prevent accumulation of multigenerational wealth.

That all reeks of the old death duties that nearly destroyed the UK heritage and resulted in many estates falling to decay or off shore ownership. His proposal is dangerous, it will not have the results he imagines. We would see a torrent of wealth being transferred offshore which will be extremely bad.

Death Duties were responsible for the loss of so many wonderful country houses - it was criminal. The unfortunate owners who were faced with the taxes sometimes ended up demolishing the houses because after paying the tax they had nothing left to run them. Britain lost a significant chunk of it's built heritage.

Indeed, so bad was the situation that the National Trust was actually invented to help save the houses and estates - by bequeathing the houses etc to the NT, the Executors avoided having to pay the taxes as they were remitted in return.

My Great Grandfather died unexpectedly and had not yet made adequate estate planning provisions, so the family lost 3000 acres of prime Home Counties farmland because it had to be sold to pay the taxes due on his death.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1685551 9-Dec-2016 22:59

frankv:

MikeB4:

frankv:

Hammerer:

It is not "legalised theft" to avoid tax. It is evading tax that is illegal.

Evading tax is theft. Avoiding tax is legalised theft... if it means you are paying less than your share. "Paying your share" is an ethical decision, not a legal one.

If companies and or individuals make deductions against their tax liability that have been sanctioned by parliament then it is not legalised theft. They are doing precisely what they have been authorised

to do. Now if one wants those deductions stopped one needs to lobby parliament for change in legislation.

Yes, it is legal... that is why I used the word "legalised". Yes, they are doing what they are authorised to do. Yes, if one wants those deductions stopped one needs to lobby parliament for change in legislation... although I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion.

But...

If you know that you're paying less than your fair share of tax, then you are a bludger, picking the pockets of the honest.

You probably need some help with that chip on your shoulder - it must be weighing you down.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15