WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

Forums › Off topic › WINZ expected to pay for a 3k treadmill

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373859 25-Aug-2015 13:59

DizzyD: Mike's response, like your previous response to me earlier, are both nicely wrapped strawmen.

Yep, far better to keep the discussion at the level of dismissive generalisations with no evidence to support one's position than explore scenarios that clearly expose the farcial nature of one's claims...

Time to retire from this, me thinks!

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1373860 25-Aug-2015 14:00

MikeB4:
DizzyD:
If someone says, and I quote "I won't work because I can earn almost as much on a benefit"! Well thats a bad attitude. No need for the "Yeah I guess the Sole parent... " dribble

Mike's response, like your previous response to me earlier, are both nicely wrapped strawmen.

So instead of asking why like I invited you respond thus.

This is an open forum.
Why take this debate offline into PM's?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1373862 25-Aug-2015 14:03

DizzyD:
MikeB4:
DizzyD:
If someone says, and I quote "I won't work because I can earn almost as much on a benefit"! Well thats a bad attitude. No need for the "Yeah I guess the Sole parent... " dribble

Mike's response, like your previous response to me earlier, are both nicely wrapped strawmen.

So instead of asking why like I invited you respond thus.

This is an open forum.
Why take this debate offline into PM's?

Because I do not wish to make a public statement.

To quote Jonathan18 "Time to retire from this"

shk292

2856 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1373866 25-Aug-2015 14:05

jonathan18: The benefit system needs to be so designed that there is a financial incentive to taking on employment (a carrot), rather than just resorting to having one's support cut for refusing to take on employment (the stick).

It is: it's called the in-work tax credit. This ensures that low-paid people with a family are better off than their equivalents on a benefit

So it's kind of ironic that the left-wingers are demanding that this incentive is effectively removed, by paying it regardless of employment status

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1373870 25-Aug-2015 14:10

jmh:
DizzyD:
sir1963:

And whats worse, the social workers we expect to work with these people are paid crap wages.

And what are these social workers doing to up-skill themselves, and in turn obtain better paid jobs?

A lot.

Many social workers do the job because they want to make a difference. However, with low levels of funding, caseloads are so high and the stress so bad that it affects health, that the turnover in the sector is very high. Hence the job is on the long term skills list for immigration. That's a very effective way of keeping wages down in NZ - bring in cheap foreigners.

One of my best friends is a very senior social worker for a London Borough. He earns well in excess of $130,000 with 6 weeks paid holiday in addition to public holidays plus a pension scheme that will pay him 50% of his final salary, indexed for life when he retires at 60.

I suspect that we are probably operating on the 'pay peanuts, get monkeys' principle here - but rest assured bringing in talented and experienced 'foreigners' won't be cheap if you want them to move halfway round the world.

sir1963

3261 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373894 25-Aug-2015 14:30

MikeAqua: Technically, yes. Pragmatically, no.

The government gives beneficiaries money (it's not earned) and they give some of that money back via various taxes.

Even with part time work, beneficiaries will still be net takers from the tax system.

sir1963:

But interestingly enough, people on benefits pay taxes.

40 hours on minimum wage ($14.75) = $590 a week or $30680 a year
Tax paid on that comes to $4389

HOWEVER
The employer deducts that wage at Corporate rate of 28% which is $8584.58

Making that job tax negative by $4195.58

So, even a full time employee can be tax negative.

sir1963

3261 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373902 25-Aug-2015 14:39

shk292:
jonathan18: The benefit system needs to be so designed that there is a financial incentive to taking on employment (a carrot), rather than just resorting to having one's support cut for refusing to take on employment (the stick).

It is: it's called the in-work tax credit. This ensures that low-paid people with a family are better off than their equivalents on a benefit

So it's kind of ironic that the left-wingers are demanding that this incentive is effectively removed, by paying it regardless of employment status

Actually, the left wingers want a higher minimum wage.

I dont want to see the tax payer having to subsidise the employer because they won't pay a working wage.
That money the tax payers give back to low income earners comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is other tax payers.
Perhaps responsibility should fall onto the employer.

I also want to see the end of corporate welfare for example

40 hours on minimum wage ($14.75) = $590 a week or $30680 a year
Tax paid on that comes to $4389

HOWEVER
The employer deducts that wage at Corporate rate of 28% which is $8584.58

Making that job tax negative by $4195.58

So, even a full time employee can be tax negative.

If they employer can only claim back the tax paid, then the government will be hundreds of millions better off.

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.

shk292

2856 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1373907 25-Aug-2015 14:50

sir1963:

Actually, the left wingers want a higher minimum wage.

They want all sorts of stuff, most of it unrealistic, but that doesn't make what I wrote wrong, so please don't imply that it is. To quote Metiria: "This is discrimination on the basis of parental work status, which is prohibited under the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Review Tribunal has issued a decision finding the IWTC amounts to real and substantive discrimination - See more at: https://home.greens.org.nz/bills/income-tax-universalisation-work-tax-credit-amendment-bill#sthash.Gmcx9pTF.dpuf"

sir1963:
I dont want to see the tax payer having to subsidise the employer because they won't pay a working wage.
That money the tax payers give back to low income earners comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is other tax payers.
Perhaps responsibility should fall onto the employer.

I also want to see the end of corporate welfare for example

40 hours on minimum wage ($14.75) = $590 a week or $30680 a year
Tax paid on that comes to $4389

HOWEVER
The employer deducts that wage at Corporate rate of 28% which is $8584.58

Making that job tax negative by $4195.58

So, even a full time employee can be tax negative.

If they employer can only claim back the tax paid, then the government will be hundreds of millions better off.

Those numbers just don't make sense. The employer doesn't "claim back 28%", he deducts the cost of inputs to his business from the income he makes to calculate the profit made, and then pays tax on the profit. It's nonsensical to suggest he should only be able to deduct the tax paid by his employees as the cost of employing people. I suppose you'd also say he should only be able to claim back the GST element of electricity consumed?

And what's "tax negative"? Is it better for the government to "lose" $4195 of tax revenue or pay an unemployed person the benefit?

With your thinking, I'm beginning to understand why socialist economies are doomed to failure

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1373913 25-Aug-2015 14:53

sir1963:
shk292:
jonathan18: The benefit system needs to be so designed that there is a financial incentive to taking on employment (a carrot), rather than just resorting to having one's support cut for refusing to take on employment (the stick).

It is: it's called the in-work tax credit. This ensures that low-paid people with a family are better off than their equivalents on a benefit

So it's kind of ironic that the left-wingers are demanding that this incentive is effectively removed, by paying it regardless of employment status

Actually, the left wingers want a higher minimum wage.

I dont want to see the tax payer having to subsidise the employer because they won't pay a working wage.
That money the tax payers give back to low income earners comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is other tax payers.
Perhaps responsibility should fall onto the employer.

I also want to see the end of corporate welfare for example

40 hours on minimum wage ($14.75) = $590 a week or $30680 a year
Tax paid on that comes to $4389

HOWEVER
The employer deducts that wage at Corporate rate of 28% which is $8584.58

Making that job tax negative by $4195.58

So, even a full time employee can be tax negative.

If they employer can only claim back the tax paid, then the government will be hundreds of millions better off.

What am I reading here? Should the company also pay tax on all it's other expenses? Are you suggesting companies should pay tax based on revenue?

sir1963

3261 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373922 25-Aug-2015 15:10

bazzer:
sir1963:
shk292:
jonathan18: The benefit system needs to be so designed that there is a financial incentive to taking on employment (a carrot), rather than just resorting to having one's support cut for refusing to take on employment (the stick).

It is: it's called the in-work tax credit. This ensures that low-paid people with a family are better off than their equivalents on a benefit

So it's kind of ironic that the left-wingers are demanding that this incentive is effectively removed, by paying it regardless of employment status

Actually, the left wingers want a higher minimum wage.

I dont want to see the tax payer having to subsidise the employer because they won't pay a working wage.
That money the tax payers give back to low income earners comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is other tax payers.
Perhaps responsibility should fall onto the employer.

I also want to see the end of corporate welfare for example

40 hours on minimum wage ($14.75) = $590 a week or $30680 a year
Tax paid on that comes to $4389

HOWEVER
The employer deducts that wage at Corporate rate of 28% which is $8584.58

Making that job tax negative by $4195.58

So, even a full time employee can be tax negative.

If they employer can only claim back the tax paid, then the government will be hundreds of millions better off.

What am I reading here? Should the company also pay tax on all it's other expenses? Are you suggesting companies should pay tax based on revenue?

Actually yes, a lower tax, but on the whole amount, and limit the amount you can deduct for some things.

Or do you think businesses should be able to set up shell companies in some island tax haven, then charge its NZ operations 90% of its profits as a licensing fee, thus reducing its tax liability to 1/10th of what they should pay. Small NZ businesses can't afford to do this, neither can wage workers.

I don't agree with the US system where you can pay tax twice, once in the country of origin and again when you bring profits back into the country.
NZ is far more rational where you can deduct what tax you paid overseas from what you would have paid in NZ (on the whole profit).

I also object to companies which have multiple branches manipulating the fire levy on insurance.
You have 10 branches worth 1 Million
You insure for a Maximum of 2 million dollars claimed in any one year
The fire levy gets paid on the 2 million insured, NOT the 10 million.
However ALL of their buildings get 100% fire coverage from the fire service.

Realestate agents.
They can only work for one company at a time, yet they are classed as self employed .
Suddenly their car is deductible, so is their fuel, insurance, "home office" etc etc etc.
They are also taxed at the corporate rate, not the income tax rates so pay a lower percentage on a much reduced income.

sir1963

3261 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1373929 25-Aug-2015 15:17

shk292:
sir1963:

Actually, the left wingers want a higher minimum wage.

They want all sorts of stuff, most of it unrealistic, but that doesn't make what I wrote wrong, so please don't imply that it is. To quote Metiria: "This is discrimination on the basis of parental work status, which is prohibited under the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Review Tribunal has issued a decision finding the IWTC amounts to real and substantive discrimination - See more at: https://home.greens.org.nz/bills/income-tax-universalisation-work-tax-credit-amendment-bill#sthash.Gmcx9pTF.dpuf"

sir1963:
I dont want to see the tax payer having to subsidise the employer because they won't pay a working wage.
That money the tax payers give back to low income earners comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is other tax payers.
Perhaps responsibility should fall onto the employer.

I also want to see the end of corporate welfare for example

40 hours on minimum wage ($14.75) = $590 a week or $30680 a year
Tax paid on that comes to $4389

HOWEVER
The employer deducts that wage at Corporate rate of 28% which is $8584.58

Making that job tax negative by $4195.58

So, even a full time employee can be tax negative.

If they employer can only claim back the tax paid, then the government will be hundreds of millions better off.

Those numbers just don't make sense. The employer doesn't "claim back 28%", he deducts the cost of inputs to his business from the income he makes to calculate the profit made, and then pays tax on the profit. It's nonsensical to suggest he should only be able to deduct the tax paid by his employees as the cost of employing people. I suppose you'd also say he should only be able to claim back the GST element of electricity consumed?

And what's "tax negative"? Is it better for the government to "lose" $4195 of tax revenue or pay an unemployed person the benefit?

With your thinking, I'm beginning to understand why socialist economies are doomed to failure

I know a number of employees who have these part time jobs , have to drive themselves from one to another, their costs are not deductible....
One even works for a company that has set up each cleaning job as being a separate contract, so it becomes the employees cost not the employers cost to get them from job to job.

Its interesting to read how last year when a number of states in the USA pushed up the minimum wage (as opposed to those that said employers could not afford it), the GDP of the states actually increased at a much faster rate, benefitting employers, employees and local government.

Higher minimum wages can lead to lower corporate taxes because of reduced/nil subsidies being paid to low waged people.

Right wing policies leads to exploitation, just look hard at Amazon.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1373939 25-Aug-2015 15:29

sir1963:
Right wing policies leads to exploitation, just look hard at Amazon.

Left wing policies lead to limitations as to what businesses can/cannot do. They hamper production and innovation. Far worse IMO than right wing policies.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1374005 25-Aug-2015 16:28

Right wing policies leads to exploitation, just look hard at Amazon.

Funny, I know 3 people PERSONALLY who work at various levels at Amazon. They LOVE it there. In any large organization you will find people who feel exploited and overworked etc.

I am not saying they are perfect, but 3 from 3 I know personally vs a few found by journalists, I'd trust the people I know.

The recent Amazon staff issues feel like a hatchet jobs.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1374011 25-Aug-2015 16:44

shk292:
jmh:
DizzyD:
sir1963:

And whats worse, the social workers we expect to work with these people are paid crap wages.

And what are these social workers doing to up-skill themselves, and in turn obtain better paid jobs?

Many social workers do the job because they want to make a difference. However, with low levels of funding, caseloads are so high and the stress so bad that it affects health, that the turnover in the sector is very high. Hence the job is on the long term skills list for immigration. That's a very effective way of keeping wages down in NZ - bring in cheap foreigners.

Yep, it certainly works that way for other occupations on the list, like vets, surgeons, GPs, ICT Project Managers, electricians, ship captains, specialist physicians, obstetricians, chartered engineers etc etc. Those guys are on a pittance!

I must ask the Dutch anaesthetist who attended me on my last surgery - his new $400,000 Mercedes Gullwing SLS must have come from some other job he has...!

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1374023 25-Aug-2015 16:54

Dam 11 pages.

I think it can all be summed up by saying something along the lines of....

"An individual taxpayer will never have a say over how tax is spent, we have an elected government to work that out, however said government or agent of the government i.e. WINZ, MSD etc should have to authorise a payment. It should not be expected by any individual that the tax payer will pick this up without some kind of authorisation first"

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13