Occupy Together!!

Forums › Off topic › Occupy Together!!

1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ... | 41

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542618 8-Nov-2011 14:49

MikeyPI:
There we go, you see tax as punishment, i see it as equitably contributing to the country. I want EVERY one to be better off in NZ, not just the rich, or business owners like myself. [snip]

Glad you used the word equitably...

So you want everyone to contribute based on how much of the shared pool of tax dollars they actually use? WHat? No?

Ok then, maybe you want all workers to all contribute the same absolute number of dollars per year as Tax? Oh, No, again?

Of course not. High wage earners pay FAR MORE in tax than the benefit they receive, low wage earners and unemployed pay FAR LESS tax than the benefit they receive. This is the price we pay for living in society...

However, taxation is _not_ equitable, it's not even close. The rich pay FAR MORE than the poor, both in absolute terms and as a ratio of contributed/benefit.

It's not meant to be equitable - you certainly don't want that!

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542632 8-Nov-2011 15:10

Talkiet:
MikeyPI:
But to retort, if you raise the tax on someone earning 150K a year by an extra $100 week, & subsidise someone on min wage with that, how does the the 3.4% drop in high wage earners salary, and the corresponding 20% increase in the low wage salary necessarily upset the balance of things?

Bear in mind you asked this question, so you should be prepared for the answers...

Well, it upsets the balance of things by rewarding the low wage earner disproportionately and teaching them that if they work harder and earn more, they have to give more away.

It also tells high wage earners that the more they earn, the more they are expected to subsidise low wage earners.

So while you have 2 people whose income is now (marginally) closer together than it was, and you could argue it will have a small impact on the high wage earner, you're now depressing the incentive for low wage earners to work harder (or upskill etc) by giving them something extra for nothing.

I know you'll hate this, and may not even see what I am saying... I DO AGREE that in the short term your idea is lovely, but I don't believe it's sustainable... Taken to the extreme (and I don't think you're proposing that) your logic should suggest that brain surgeons and burger flippers end up with the same income (after tax offsets).

However if you agree that some people do deserve more income than others (they work longer, or have specialised skills or experience etc) then now what you're saying is that the government should to some level over-ride the free market and change the effective remuneration offered to high and low wage earners...

That isn't something I'd want to do - and I wouldn't want to live in a society that embraced that any more than we do today...

Cheers - N

Yes the more you earn, the more responsibility you have. Also it does nothing of the sort for low income earners, becasue A) they are already working, and B) that involves the assumption that the low income earner has zero aspirations of moving up the ladder, which we can both admit is a falsehood.

I never came close to saying brain surgeons & burger flippers should earn the same, thats a complete strawman.
Quick analogy that was in the media. Politicians vs the beehive cleaners. Who do you thinks works harder? And do you support the fact the some ethnic immigrant, vs a silver spoon MP both have the same opportunities in life?

Also the free - market ideal is long dead. Even its greatest proponents in Greenspan & Bernake have now admitted it may be flawed (well duhh). In fact when ever I hear it trotted out these days, I have to seriously question whether or not the speaker actually comprehends the theory, or are just parroting phrases that fit their ideology.
It based on the long held "invisible hand" theorem that may work in a vacuum, but people are inherently flawed and operate on the one thing that destroys the entire theorem, emotion.

The history of mankind is written in ineqaulity, from cromagnon man, to the mongols, to Rome to the present day. Man has coveted what he himself does not possess. There are some companies that have systems where the highest paid staff member can only get X times the salary of the lowest paid employee. It works remarkably well across all measurably channels, and is supported by both consumers & employees alike.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542640 8-Nov-2011 15:18

Talkiet:

I am going to support a party that I believe is guided by sound principles. For me, that's an environment where businesses are rewarded for providing more employment and contributions to our GDP, it's also one where social, health and education services are maintained at least where they are today.

I'm not going to support policies that seek to arbitrarily redistribute wealth.

Cheers - N

Did you support Nationals tax cuts? Did you support the RWC? Did you support the deposit guarantees scheme? The pension?

More employment? So you would take more min wage jobs, then fewer high paying jobs? GDP contributions? So you would take a socially irresponsible company ie McDoanlds, over a NZ owned, sustainable business as long as McD's is paying $1 tax more? GDP is only 1 of many measurements.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542649 8-Nov-2011 15:22

KiwiNZ:

What taxes go to AirNZ?

She went to private Schools

She works dammed hard for what she earns , she also does considerable voluntary charity work.

Why mention the travel, to example why she earns the rewards she gets. That travel is work related.

Before ill health forced me to retire I also were the same as her.

AirNZ has been sold and bought twice, all with our money. Private schools still get tax payer money. I consider travel for work the bane of my life...

I also hope you never once called an ambulance, or saw a GP, or set foot in a public hospital for you ill health. (of which i mean you no malice, hope you are well)

Do you collect super annuation?

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542655 8-Nov-2011 15:31

ScottStevensNZ:
I'll put my hand up to this one. I came from a poor family, went through school, uni and came out with a $48,000 student loan - and now, $70,000 later I have paid it off. I earn $110,000 now after 9-10 years in the work force. So, given that I am still here and working, given that I have paid an extra 22k in interest, that I pay tax, have medical insurance why should I be penalised more for the fact that I have got off my butt, studied and have done well?

Spare me the poor family routine. I hear it enough from people justify why they shouldn't help others. I was most suburbanites worst nightmare, a true street thug (not in the glamourous movie connotation, but the violent, ugly truth of it). Until i continued to educate myself (left school at 15) and read.

I am now in a similar situation to yourself, however I do not bemoan the burden of my success, and can openly admit the system does work work to the benefit of the majority.. I would happily pay a little extra tax to alleviate the suffering of my fellow citizens.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542659 8-Nov-2011 15:36

MikeyPI:
John2010:
MikeyPI:

...As numerous social scientists, economists & mathematician have proved, money flows up, not down. Most people who dispute this are uninformed, misguided, or deliberately lying.

Well as another lot of numerous social scientists, economists & mathematicians have proved there is not much point taking the money off the rich and giving it to the poor as then "up" will be "down" and "down" will be "up" and the money will get totally confused and won't know which way to flow.

That makes no sense & is pure misinformation. Nothing like clouding a reasonable debate with mindless drivel. If you have nothing of value to contribute...

Well actually I thought that your claims were mindless drivel, pure misinformation and not contributing anything (in fact I wondered if you might have been pulling our legs by making them) so I guess it is a matter of perspective. And so now that we know that you were serious the claim of yours that those disagreeing with you are "are uninformed, misguided, or deliberately lying" smells of your being blinkered to other points of view and so your deserving a dismissive response.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#542662 8-Nov-2011 15:39

MikeyPI:
KiwiNZ:

What taxes go to AirNZ?

She went to private Schools

She works dammed hard for what she earns , she also does considerable voluntary charity work.

Why mention the travel, to example why she earns the rewards she gets. That travel is work related.

Before ill health forced me to retire I also were the same as her.

AirNZ has been sold and bought twice, all with our money. Private schools still get tax payer money. I consider travel for work the bane of my life...

I also hope you never once called an ambulance, or saw a GP, or set foot in a public hospital for you ill health. (of which i mean you no malice, hope you are well)

Do you collect super annuation?

I see my Specialists privately and have been in private hospital. I have used Ambulances but have always made a donation after.

No I do not draw any Welfare assistance I am too young for National Superannuation , I am only 55

AirNZ was purchased in 2001 to save the only New Zealand based carrier and National Carrier from liquidation.

Samsung

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

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542666 8-Nov-2011 15:44

Of course not. High wage earners pay FAR MORE in tax than the benefit they receive, low wage earners and unemployed pay FAR LESS tax than the benefit they receive. This is the price we pay for living in society...

However, taxation is _not_ equitable, it's not even close. The rich pay FAR MORE than the poor, both in absolute terms and as a ratio of contributed/benefit.

It's not meant to be equitable - you certainly don't want that!

Cheers - N

Proof of you stats please? Thats misinformed rubbish.. Roading for one, police for another, education next, then superannaution.

The only thing the poor use more than the rich is the 11.2% of the social welfare spending that is the unemployment benefit, then accommodation allowance.

The middle & upper class use far more of working for families & superannuation (50% of the social welfare budget) than the poor....

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#542669 8-Nov-2011 15:49

MikeyPI:

Of course not. High wage earners pay FAR MORE in tax than the benefit they receive, low wage earners and unemployed pay FAR LESS tax than the benefit they receive. This is the price we pay for living in society...

However, taxation is _not_ equitable, it's not even close. The rich pay FAR MORE than the poor, both in absolute terms and as a ratio of contributed/benefit.

It's not meant to be equitable - you certainly don't want that!

Cheers - N

Proof of you stats please? Thats misinformed rubbish.. Roading for one, police for another, education next, then superannaution.

The only thing the poor use more than the rich is the 11.2% of the social welfare spending that is the unemployment benefit, then accommodation allowance.

The middle & upper class use far more of working for families & superannuation (50% of the social welfare budget) than the poor....

Are you saying that it is only the rich that use our roads, protected by the police, are educated and eventually receive National Super?

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542674 8-Nov-2011 15:55

MikeyPI:
Talkiet:

I am going to support a party that I believe is guided by sound principles. For me, that's an environment where businesses are rewarded for providing more employment and contributions to our GDP, it's also one where social, health and education services are maintained at least where they are today.

I'm not going to support policies that seek to arbitrarily redistribute wealth.

Cheers - N

Did you support Nationals tax cuts? Did you support the RWC? Did you support the deposit guarantees scheme? The pension?

More employment? So you would take more min wage jobs, then fewer high paying jobs? GDP contributions? So you would take a socially irresponsible company ie McDoanlds, over a NZ owned, sustainable business as long as McD's is paying $1 tax more? GDP is only 1 of many measurements.

Tax cuts - Yes, for entirely selfish reasons... wouldn't have affected my vote
RWC - Don't know yet - will depend on the longer term results. At the time I was skeptical of the economic benefits to NZ beyond the short term.
Deposit Guarantees Scheme - No, but I can understand why they did it.
Pension - Yes, if only because the people receiving it are those that have been contributing to it for decades. Any change to this should have a huge glidepath.

And as for McDs vs a local company - they should be on an even footing IMO... I personally buy locally when I can and it makes sense (price, support, quality) and internationally when I care less about support.

I also find it surprising that in order to have an opinion on one part of economic policy, so many people feel the need to ascribe opinions on different policies.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542675 8-Nov-2011 15:55

MikeyPI:

AirNZ has been sold and bought twice, all with our money.

Air NZ has always been all or partly owned by the NZ Government since the very first days of TEAL its predecessor was created back in WW2 days. All that has changed is the percentage shareholding held by the NZ Government (and sometimes the Australian Government too in TEAL days) and as of now the NZ Government only has a majority shareholding in the company.

It has therefore never been "sold and bought twice".

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542685 8-Nov-2011 16:19

MikeyPI:
Proof of you stats please? Thats misinformed rubbish.. Roading for one, police for another, education next, then superannaution.

The only thing the poor use more than the rich is the 11.2% of the social welfare spending that is the unemployment benefit, then accommodation allowance.

The middle & upper class use far more of working for families & superannuation (50% of the social welfare budget) than the poor....

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/net_taxpayers.html

"Michael Woodhouse: Which groups now pay most of the tax collected by the Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Our tax and transfer system is highly redistributive, and the number of people paying income tax is surprisingly small. The lowest-income 43 percent of households currently receive more in income support than they pay in income tax. The 1.3 million households with incomes under $110,000 a year collectively pay no net tax—that is, their total income support payments match their combined income tax. The top 10 percent of households contribute over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers—over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers. This system is highly redistributive and we believe it is fair."

So there you go. You can attack recent, official figures if you like... But given the numbers here I'm going to _firmly_ stand by my comments.

Of course, if you have access to better data, I'd be happy to see it.

Regards
Neil G

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542729 8-Nov-2011 17:54

Talkiet:
MikeyPI:
Proof of you stats please? Thats misinformed rubbish.. Roading for one, police for another, education next, then superannaution.

The only thing the poor use more than the rich is the 11.2% of the social welfare spending that is the unemployment benefit, then accommodation allowance.

The middle & upper class use far more of working for families & superannuation (50% of the social welfare budget) than the poor....

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/net_taxpayers.html

"Michael Woodhouse: Which groups now pay most of the tax collected by the Government?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Our tax and transfer system is highly redistributive, and the number of people paying income tax is surprisingly small. The lowest-income 43 percent of households currently receive more in income support than they pay in income tax. The 1.3 million households with incomes under $110,000 a year collectively pay no net tax—that is, their total income support payments match their combined income tax. The top 10 percent of households contribute over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers—over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers. This system is highly redistributive and we believe it is fair."
So there you go. You can attack recent, official figures if you like... But given the numbers here I'm going to _firmly_ stand by my comments.

Of course, if you have access to better data, I'd be happy to see it.

Regards
Neil G

Haha sorry but your source is KiwiBlog quoting Bill English? You may as well just called up Nationals PR department. Bill's Hardly an authority on quantitative data analysis, & lately it seems finance as well. This is the same guy who said he hadnt seen the credit downgrade coming' & regularly contradicts both his boss & Treasury. So either he's a liar, or incompetent (most likely both).

Also as a statistician would point out, thats not data, thats empty words... Notice that 1) he defines lowest income as 43% of population, at an income as $110,000pa. Hardly low income. If you shifted that down to $50k pa it would change that dramatically. Also he puts that low income number @ 1.3million HOUSEHOLDS.
Funny because stats NZ has this to say

"In 2006, there were 1.12 million family households in New Zealand. This number is projected to increase by 259,000 (an average of 0.8 percent a year), to reach 1.38 million in 2031"

So according to old Bill there is more poor bludger households in NZ than actually exist. So you wish to stand by those numbers then go ahead.

One last thing from the Economist article (which I disagree with their findings but not their data)
"According to the OECD, a think-tank, the top 10% of earners contribute about a third of total tax revenues—28% in France, 31% in Germany and 42% in Italy. Rich Britons pay about 39% of total taxes while America’s wealthiest households contribute a larger share to government than in any other OECD country, at 45%. "

But old Bill said they pay 70! He cant be lying can he? Hint " The top 10 percent of households contribute over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers—over 70 percent of income tax, net of transfers"

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542730 8-Nov-2011 17:58

KiwiNZ:

Are you saying that it is only the rich that use our roads, protected by the police, are educated and eventually receive National Super?

Nope, Im saying the exact opposite of your previous post, they use MORE of the roading system, affording greater protection from the Justice system, have greater access to education & health, live longer and recieve super for an increased length of time, while still enjoy the benefit of their capital accumulation.

Nice attempt at the 2nd strawman attack of the day though, but you did at least ask me if thats what I said! ;)

Ragnor

8220 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542733 8-Nov-2011 18:12

If you want to tax the asset rich who use clever tax accountants to dodge paying their fair share of tax you need a land tax or a proper capital gains tax (like in Gareth Morgan's "Big Kahuna" plan not like Labour's one with so many exclusions).

Higher income tax really won't fix anything, all you're doing is punishing the middle class excessively when they already pay the majority of the tax burden.

I believe those figures Bill English quoted in that question time reply are from Treasury, I think I had a link to the raw data/spreadsheet saved somewhere at home.

1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ... | 41