Warning: Rage Ahead - Campbell Live and childhood poverty

Forums › Off topic › Warning: Rage Ahead - Campbell Live and childhood poverty

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1121552 4-Sep-2014 08:50

sir1963:
Geektastic:
sir1963:
Geektastic:
charsleysa:
sir1963:
Geektastic: The most obvious thing to do is lower our tax rates so that no one - corporate or individual - feels they are being extorted. If people think the amounts they are paying are reasonable they are far less likely to spend money on expensive accountancy to try and avoid paying.

Given that companies pay employees who pay tax, pay vehicle taxes for road use, GST for all manner of things and so on it is hard to see what they are actually taxed for at all other than 'just because we can'.

Ireland tried that.... and FAILED.

lets now look at the other assumptions

Employee tax. 2000hr a year @$14 the employee pays $3920 tax, the employer deducts the wage at 28% so gets back $7840.
Companies don't pay GST
Businesses use the police and other emergency services
Businesses use the courts
Businesses use the health system (accidents at work are heavily subsidised)
Businesses benefit from the education system
Businesses benefit from trade agreements

etc etc etc.

Are you trying to say business use all these services without paying for it?

Businesses pay tax at 28%, and the tax they remove from an employee wage/salary goes directly to the IRD.

Businesses have many employees who earn FAR more than $14/hour. I have not worked for that little since I did odd jobs for my father as a teenager and neither has anyone else I know!

Companies are unpaid tax collectors for GST.

Are you suggesting the courts would vanish if we wound up all the businesses?

Businesses do not use the health system at all. Their employees do.

So what?

So what? With no businesses, why would you even have a trade agreement?

Not all businesses are huge things with millions of dollars slushing through the accounts. Most are very small with very few employees - often none bar the owners - and their cash flows are severely impacted by things like GST, Provisional Tax and so on.

With no businesses you have nil employment - which is a much greater benefit to society than businesses get in return for a 28% tax bill!!

From NZ statistics
Median hourly earnings are $21.58, so 50% of the workforce earn less than this.
I know a LOT of people on the minimum wage, for a start they work in supermarkets on the checkouts, cleaners in schools, hospitals , businesses
Businesses deduct a LOT of "expenses" before they pay taxes, in Googles case about 90-95% of their profits go into "fees" so they are paying an effective tax of about 1.4%

Employees get no deductions, when I started work I could deduct my tools of trade, work wear, educational costs, text books etc etc etc

I know of a number of families who pay for their children's tertiary education in the form of a "scholarship" which is then tax deductible , like wise I know of families who paid their kids $20/hr to "sweep the floors" at their business while paying their employees minimum wage.

Businesses DO use the health system, minor work accidents etc get a massive subsidy from the tax payer when the employee goes to the doctor, hospital, etc
They also benefit indirectly though lower absenteeism rates. Businesses are big customers for the police system, I would imagine if they had to pay the police on a per hour basis most crime would not be bothered with as it would be too expensive to solve.

A business is set up by someone who sees an opportunity to make money. If they can't, they won't invest, and that is irrespective of the tax rate.
At 0% takes if you can't make money, you won't invest.
The USA in the 1950s had a corporate tax rate of 50%, yet the economy was more vibrant, had more growth etc etc than it does today at 27%

Businesses live and die by people willing to buy their services/products.
If the minimum wage went up to $20 that would see low income families spending more money on food, clothing, etc. That would see businesses more willing to take on staff, enlarge their business and that had zero to do with the tax rate.
If on the other hand employees wages fall behind inflation, that leaves them less money to spend causing businesses to contract. And if we go into smaller towns that often sees businesses close. No customers = no business.

Now lets look at another scams big business uses.
Insurance. A big business has 20 branches, they figure the worst possible situation would be an event that destroys 1 branch, so what they do is insure say twice that. Lets say each branch is worth $1million, that means they insure up to 2 million in any year. The fire levy which pays for the fire brigade is worked out on this value, so they pay a fire levy for $2million of assets, yet they get the same level of protection for all $20 million. Home owners and small business end up subsiding the big ones.

Wages.
I know of businesses who "pay" their owner a minimum wage, that way they can get money back through Guaranteed minimum family income, independent tax credit , housing support, etc. Hell one even tried using their low income to get a rebate on the council rates.

So, yes business must pay taxes and corporation need to pay far more than they do

You still haven't really explained why businesses, which provide more or less 100% of the employment in society, should pay tax for the privilege of doing that....

Because without those businesses most jobs would still more or less be required and people would simply be self employed.
Those businesses can also be collective, shareholder owned and operated, charities.
Businesses are NOT the only way groups of people bind together for a collective goal

Businesses directly benefit from a healthy, educated workforce, they benefit directly from law and order etc and there are many areas where they benefit indirectly too, New Zealand being for example the least corrupt country in the world, hell without rules and laws the share market would collapse simply because no one could trust it.

Businesses benefit from a stable effective government and rule of law. Of course they should pay for it. Unless of sours you want businesses exempt, so yo get burgled , YOUR problem, no police will be involved, you are outside of the rule of law. Someone torches your property, YOUR problem, you are outside the rule of law.Do you really want to be in a place where you are forced to pay bribes and protection money.

So my business tax just covers things I could easily obtain in the private sector at less cost then? From a provider of my choice?

MileHighKiwi

782 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1121584 4-Sep-2014 09:09

I think poverty is an overused and misunderstood word in this country.

Definitions from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Definitions

United Nations: Fundamentally, poverty is the inability of getting choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one’s food or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation.

There are many families in NZ that are struggling on low incomes; no doubt about that.

But at least they have access to free schooling, healthcare, clean water and jobs, even low paying ones. And the government tops up your income with a variety of benefits and supplements.

Relative poverty might be a better term, but again I think it is misunderstand.

The reality is there will always be people at the top and people at the bottom. But no matter where you come from, in New Zealand you have the opportunity to succeed, IMO. There are countless examples of people that were on low incomes and through their internal drive and motivation they created a better life for themselves. I work in the education sector and see this everyday from adult students trying to get ahead. But if you lack motivation and accept your lot in life it probably won't get much better.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1121633 4-Sep-2014 09:58

Geektastic: I'd love to reduce the 100% quote thing but every time I alter the quoted text I get some BS about 'tags' and it won't post...!

Each quote tag must have an endquote tag. Simple as that. Have a practice in the geekzone forum. I sometimes create a post there just to trial things. It's an appropriate place to practice and nobody seems to mind. Call it practice post or something.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1121742 4-Sep-2014 12:08

gzt:
Geektastic: I'd love to reduce the 100% quote thing but every time I alter the quoted text I get some BS about 'tags' and it won't post...!

Each quote tag must have an endquote tag. Simple as that. Have a practice in the geekzone forum. I sometimes create a post there just to trial things. It's an appropriate place to practice and nobody seems to mind. Call it practice post or something.

Yes, but if I leave the tags unaltered and delete text in the middle, AFAICS that should just be fine....but it's not!

I have to say that tags etc seem a pretty old fashioned form of interface in 2014. Why can't the system just work in Rich Text without displaying the techno gobbledigook? Most other forums do these days.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1121752 4-Sep-2014 12:20

Geektastic:

Please create a post on the geekzone forum forum. Let's continue that discussion there.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1122208 4-Sep-2014 22:21

hangon:
gzt:
"Manurewa High School principal Salvatore Gargiulo has students that attend his school who come from families that earn a total income of $20,000 and have up to seven mouths to feed. "I don't know how that family would survive on $20,000," says Mr Gargiulo, and these aren't families that smoke, drink or gamble. "Most of our families don't go near that sort of stuff," says Mr Gargiulo "They haven't got any option.""

In contrast a lot of the comments here have discussed irresponsible parenting as the root cause of the majority of this. That is a very big claim to make.

how does a couple decide to bring 5 children to this world on a 20k income is beyond me. having kids would be the last thing in my mind even if I have just myself to feed on 20k.

and I've yet to see the detailed figures. there is no way the family of 7 earn a total income of $20k - that means between the parents they don't even get 30 hours of work pw on minimum wages. let's just assume 1 is working 30 hours pw, 5 children under 13, the wwf alone would bring in another $537 a week, not to mention Accommodation Supplement ($165 pw in Auckland south and not in a state house), Childcare Assistance and other benefits
http://www.ird.govt.nz/calculators/keyword/wff-tax-credits/calculator-wfftc-estimate-2013.html

that's $702 pw, or $36.5k pa, tax free on top of their $20k "income", which is more like $72k before tax pa.

provided it's still not a lot to raise 5 kids, it's definitely far from the claimed figures of "total income of $20k and up to 7 mouths to feed".

show me their budget, all income streams, all expenses. as I said, if true hardships are identified, I'd like to see they receive more tax payer help.

That's interesting. I've seen at least two similar investigation stories (newspaper) where in amidst the hardship it is found that the person/family is not actually getting the level of assistance they are entitled to.

Additionally, anecdotally from people in the social work areas I have heard it is often the case people are simply not informed of the assistance available, and that advocates are required more often than they should be or in some cases must intervene to help people work through the process of applying for this or that assistance. Additionally, I would hazard a guess that when circumstances change there is nothing to catch up or trigger a review.

So from what I have heard and read imho the WINZ department could probably do better in this area and have a few more proactive processes.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1122502 5-Sep-2014 12:39

As a taxpayer it frustrates me that we have kids living in poverty in this country.

It's a sad reality that there always has been and always will be a number of people in society who do not look after their kids. Giving this particular group more money does not help the kids. You can only help those kids by removing them from their parents and this is a drastic step that introduces all sorts of issues. This is the small % of feckless idiots you simply cannot reach.

Then there are people who are trying hard but struggling. They may have made poor and irreversible choices, they may have simply been unlucky. It seems to me these people struggle to get enough assistance, regardless of who is in power. This frustrating because these are the people you can help.

Why? Where do our taxes go? I firmly believe that enough tax is raised but it is not well spent.

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.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1122547 5-Sep-2014 13:47

I would firmly like to see some kind of rental housing warrant of fitness phased in. I don't know any details of what political parties are proposing, but I do think some kind of minimum would be a good start to avoid disruption.

Essentially a landlord/property investor provides a service and some kind of minimum standard for that service is required. As a secondary effect this would also mildly dampen sales of property unsuitable for renting under that standard and providing a slightly better entry point to first home buyers and renovators in that part of the market.

Basically I think that putting up with some inconvenience and rennovations as a first home buyer or renovator for capital gain is quite different from simply renting a below standard property where the renter is often paying the same rental price as other properties in the area anyway.

hangon

397 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1122553 5-Sep-2014 13:59

gzt: I would firmly like to see some kind of rental housing warrant of fitness phased in. I don't know any details of what political parties are proposing, but I do think some kind of minimum would be a good start to avoid disruption.

Essentially a landlord/property investor provides a service and some kind of minimum standard for that service is required. As a secondary effect this would also mildly dampen sales of property unsuitable for renting under that standard and providing a slightly better entry point to first home buyers and renovators in that part of the market.

Basically I think that putting up with some inconvenience and rennovations as a first home buyer or renovator for capital gain is quite different from simply renting a below standard property where the renter is often paying the same rental price as other properties in the area anyway.

While I agree there should be a minimum standard, side effect it's very likely going to push rents and house prices higher.

Currently I believe the tenants can complain to dbh or tenancy tribunal if they think the house is in a poor condition and they would send investigators.

Not entirely sure ppl would (often) pay the same rent in a below standard property (as other properties) - either they have no choices, meaning other properties (met standard) in hot demands and likely to see rents rise higher, or they could walk away and pick the said other property instead.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1122578 5-Sep-2014 14:35

hangon: While I agree there should be a minimum standard, side effect it's very likely going to push rents and house prices higher.

Imho if various standard items are phased in, this should avoid any massive rental price swing effects due to rental properties being withdrawn from the market and a corresponding shortage.

I agree there is a cost of inspection and this will be factored into rental returns. It is certainly possible there will be small increases in price to cover this.

I believe that the potential risk of small increases overall in average rental price is worthwhile to improve overall the conditions in which people live in New Zealand.

This will not lead to increases in house sale prices. Actually the opposite, as I outlined reasons for in the post above this one.

hangon: Currently I believe the tenants can complain to dbh or tenancy tribunal if they think the house is in a poor condition and they would send investigators.

You may be correct. However this can entail significant disruption to the relationship with the owner, and potential disruption to occupation of the property. While not in direct relation to the topic, certainly I have seen that a large number tenants avoid going even close to these risks for obvious reasons.

hangon: Not entirely sure ppl would (often) pay the same rent in a below standard property (as other properties) - either they have no choices, meaning other properties (met standard) in hot demands and likely to see rents rise higher, or they could walk away and pick the said other property instead.

Yes this is often the case either due to a limit of choices (supply problem). Also there are limits to ever increasing rents which explain relative equilibrium (similar prices for variant properties) in some areas.

Add that factor that renter often does not have the knowledge or information required to make an informed decision and discovers issues much later. Ie; no insulation and other issues related to heating cost.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1122658 5-Sep-2014 16:35

kawaii: Just watching Campbell Live now: http://www.3news.co.nz/TVShows/CampbellLive (article not up on the website yet).

Then the next two families, parents plus five kids followed by another family of parents with six kids; do the parents even think of asking themselves whether they had the means to support their kids before having them? I can understand wanting to help the kids but here are two problems:

1) If you're not going to address the bad decision making then you'll have the next generation repeating the same mistakes their parents made and the cycle will repeat indefinitely.

2) Parental accountability to send a clear message to the community that you don't just go out, make lifestyle choices then expect the rest of society to pick up the pieces - it isn't fair on tax payers and it isn't fair on the kids who are born into such a situation.

J.

Not everyone gets to make choices re family size. We had two slip the goalie - and I had had the snip 18 months before number 4 started, we were using protection nad had age etc against us.

Believe me - large families are not always the result of choice or bad decision making or lack of responsibility (except maybe on the part of a doctor who performed a botched snip job)

Let me add - for the record. I am glad to have four kids,, dont regret having them and am glad things went 'wrong'. Has it been hard- Yup. Has it been financially tough. Yup. But hey - no one said life was going to be easy all the time.

Also empty fridges in my house are often the result of rich prats not paying their bills in a timely fashion or even at all. Again- not my fault.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1122659 5-Sep-2014 16:37

Geektastic: I just spent 4 weeks in SE Asia shooting foreign aid projects.

Believe me, no one in NZ needs to live in poverty and compared to many of the people I see in my work there, none of them do.

The word is misused here IMV. There may be plenty of people whose choices and/or circumstances have left them without adequate funds but that is not the same as scraping a subsistence living in a leaky bamboo hut with a dirt floor, no toilets, no water, no power, no medical care, no schooling, no WINZ, no ACC etc etc etc

Preach it brother.

TV's play stations, mobile phones, internet connections, fridges, cars, scooters, bikes, etc etc etc - not essential items for living. The only reason to be poor in NZ is to support an affluent life style (all Nzers live in the top 30% of people in the world financially). probably the top 15% if truth be known.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1122664 5-Sep-2014 16:44

Geektastic:
alasta: I agree, but what are policy makers supposed to do? You can't just leave the kids to suffer, and you can't forcibly remove anyone's ability to have kids without violating their human rights.

Easy. You merely alter their rights. They are only words on paper - you can change them any time.

Remove social Walfare. Replace it with working(see below) for the dole.
Remove monetary social welfare payments. Provide SW housing - basic, warm and dry but no more.
Remove financial / money hand outs and hand out what people need such as food coupons, electrical coupons, health coupons, clothing coupons.

by doing this you remove the 'enjoyment' and 'ease' of long term dole bludging, rmeove the corruption factor in paying directly for housing, give people the ability to get what they need but not what they want.

Lastly - educate. if you ar unemployed you should be educated in the skills of
Job hunting.
Hygeine.
Cooking
Budgetiung
Health care
Self help / handy man / woman skills.

Unemployed poeple should be employed 40 hours per week in job hunting, social projects or self improvement through education. Sitting on a cousch with noting to do all day watching mind altering soaps on TV is bad for the person, bad for the family and bad for society.

Get unemployed poeple up and shaved, on the street and doing something - 40 hours per week, juswt like employe dpoeple, and you would hav eless suicides, less drunkenness, less violence and a much better society through social programs and mentally healthier people.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1122696 5-Sep-2014 18:07

Geektastic:

So my business tax just covers things I could easily obtain in the private sector at less cost then? From a provider of my choice?

Sorry for cutting so much out of my quote .

Small businesses employ most of the people in NZ. to be honest, most businesses should shut their doors and go home as many of them are barely scraping by.

Now - instead of adding more cost for compliance with FBT, GST, and every other tax that businesses deal with why not try this.

No personal or business tax
Increase GST across the board by about 15% (from 15% to 30%).
Increase levies on things such as alcohol, tobacco, imported dangerous goods. (crappy food, crappy plastic items and similar).

GST is the hardest thing to avoid as you pay it over the counter.
By increasing GST we get a bigger tax take from tourists, overseas businesses using our land / assets etc
We decrease compliance costs.
We make it more even across the board by increasing the take home wages of the poorer half, removing many of the tax loopholes exploited by the richer half and reducing all the compliance costs.

The only people who would dip out would be the accountants and those made redundant from the IRD.

Scarily, the older I get the more ACTS policies make sense in many ways. Gulp!!

reduction in Govt is a good thing - up to a point. Govts role is Law and order, weights and balances, protection of the state.
A proactive Govt might hlep ensure the lesser able can access health and education - which is good for everyone.
After that - its all a crap shoot really.

Things such as the promotion of the country for tourism doesn't belong in the govts role. Let those with vested tourism interests promote tourism.
Promotion of our food and products is not the govts role. let those with vested interests promote that.

Social Welfare - remove the hand out component - don't pay it out in money, pay it out in what people need but make them work for it for the benefit of the state and society. food stamps, electricity stamps, health stamps, compulsory 30-40 hours per week 'employed' in education 9both personal and intellectual), social improvement activity, skills acquisition and job searching.

Capitalism does need to be reigned in - it is a self destructive cycle of greed and escalation - so ensuring balances such as the max wage in a business is 5-10 times that of the minimum wages ensures the big fish look out for the welfare of the little fish too - their wages are reliant on that.

Also add a tax on stupidity - not via a tax route but at the source - e.g. a drunk fee for those turning up in A&E drunk and hurt. those who play sport - let them pay a levey to cover the cost of sports and injury. It well encourage a little more common sense and caution where it is needed.

Lastly - empty the prisons. Those who commit fraud - let them work to pay back what they owe. those that kill a person, let them work to replace the person they killed. Drunk drivers - public shame and humiliation - bright pink vests cleaning up poo at the local dog park - preferably with their hands, cleaning public urinals, cleaning out gunged up water ways. one week for every x points over the limit. those that kill someone while drunk - that's murder - plain and simple.

Bring back executions - some people are not worth keeping. Repeat muderers, rapists, kiddyfiddlers etc. better dead than on our tax bill. Thats good for the victim and society.

Down with political correctness - its a form of brainwashing and facism by those who want us to be as spineless as they are.

Get rid of the methodone program - its a costly way of maintaining an addict at the states expense. They dont aim to wean people off it. Drug education, and understanding has worked a treat in Holland. Add to that making people clean up their own messes afterwards and most will take drugs responsibly and exercise moderation.

No trading on Sundays. or Saturdays or whatever day we call our day off. if jo average has $10 to spend it doesn't matter if you give her / him 6 days to spend it or 7. however increasing your wages bill, power bill and other costs by 14% (1/7) in an environment with a limited fund of resource is stupid. Let families have a day off at the same time. that's good for everyone. force businesses to ensure their workers are given a regular break 1/7.

Goodness gracious Mabel, I'm sure i just turned 80 - look at my litany of old fashioned ideas.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1122698 5-Sep-2014 18:18

gzt:
hangon: While I agree there should be a minimum standard, side effect it's very likely going to push rents and house prices higher.

Imho if various standard items are phased in, this should avoid any massive rental price swing effects due to rental properties being withdrawn from the market and a corresponding shortage.

I agree there is a cost of inspection and this will be factored into rental returns. It is certainly possible there will be small increases in price to cover this.

I believe that the potential risk of small increases overall in average rental price is worthwhile to improve overall the conditions in which people live in New Zealand.

This will not lead to increases in house sale prices. Actually the opposite, as I outlined reasons for in the post above this one.

hangon: Currently I believe the tenants can complain to dbh or tenancy tribunal if they think the house is in a poor condition and they would send investigators.

You may be correct. However this can entail significant disruption to the relationship with the owner, and potential disruption to occupation of the property. While not in direct relation to the topic, certainly I have seen that a large number tenants avoid going even close to these risks for obvious reasons.

hangon: Not entirely sure ppl would (often) pay the same rent in a below standard property (as other properties) - either they have no choices, meaning other properties (met standard) in hot demands and likely to see rents rise higher, or they could walk away and pick the said other property instead.

Yes this is often the case either due to a limit of choices (supply problem). Also there are limits to ever increasing rents which explain relative equilibrium (similar prices for variant properties) in some areas.

Add that factor that renter often does not have the knowledge or information required to make an informed decision and discovers issues much later. Ie; no insulation and other issues related to heating cost.

In chch $550 - 650 per week for a three bedroom house in an average (if that) suburb is not abnormal. Really crappy houses are being rented at above normal costs. Lack of housing has pushed rents through the roof. There is a huge undersupply and over demand on good housing and many people will pay through the nose for substandard accomodation. I know chch is not in a normal phase but we aren't the only city with weird lack of housing issues.

Overseas house prices go weird too - while it is an extreme example, calcutta, experienced a huge boom of people looking for work - rural going into the cities, and even a hovel would fetch a few years wages to buy. Mumbai the same. in Nz the urbanisation of our society, reduction in the number of people per house and other factors similar all make housing more expensive than it should be.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16