Occupy Together!!

Forums › Off topic › Occupy Together!!

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 41

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542734 8-Nov-2011 18:16

MikeyPI: [snip] So you wish to stand by those numbers then go ahead.

Ok, I'll trust the _Minister of Finance_ over a person on a forum who admitted a few posts up to leaving school at 15.

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"

Clearly you didn't read or understand the table in that link above... I'll admit to not taking the 70% at absolute face value, although I trust (yes, trust) that it's not wildly wrong.

On the other hand, if you look _VERY_ carefully, you'll see a "Gross Tax Paid" column which shows that the over $150k (9.7%) household pay a Gross figure of 37%. That's before any transfers.

Hint. Read information properly when presented to you.

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.

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542739 8-Nov-2011 18:21

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?

In the case of beneficiaries, research shows that increasing benefits raises the rate of unmarried births.
Source: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2026.pdf

Most low wage workers are actually just as much beneficiaries these days

Q: Do we want more of that?

78% of teen parents are on a benefit which they stay on for 7-10 years often having a second child.
Source: Welfare Working group report / OIA

A staggering 23% of all babies born in 2010 were reliant on a benefit or welfare!

Q: Why am I subsidising teens to have kids? How is this a long term sustainable trend?

I don't see how robbing Peter to pay Paul is going to work, when skilled labour can simply depart the country.. out of my 10 closest friends from high school/uni only 3 of us remain in NZ now... rest are in Singapore, Australia, Canada and the UK.

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542744 8-Nov-2011 18:24

Then look at these, there is no future in how we are going....

Sickness benefit growth chart (pdf)

Invalid benefit numbers (pdf)

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542751 8-Nov-2011 18:49

Talkiet:
MikeyPI: [snip] So you wish to stand by those numbers then go ahead.

Ok, I'll trust the _Minister of Finance_ over a person on a forum who admitted a few posts up to leaving school at 15.

Bang, then an Ad_Homenim for good measure, keep up the fallacies.

If you didnt notice, my numbers were from Statistics NZ about the number of households in NZ. Rather than fictional numbers presented by a politician with a vested interest in manipulating the truth...

Care to launch an illogical attack on the Stats NZ? I may have left school at 15, but I continue my education, understanding & willingness to learn new things everyday..

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542755 8-Nov-2011 18:53

Ragnor:
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?

In the case of beneficiaries, research shows that increasing benefits raises the rate of unmarried births.
Source: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2026.pdf

Most low wage workers are actually just as much beneficiaries these days

Q: Do we want more of that?

78% of teen parents are on a benefit which they stay on for 7-10 years often having a second child.
Source: Welfare Working group report / OIA

A staggering 23% of all babies born in 2010 were reliant on a benefit or welfare!

Q: Why am I subsidising teens to have kids? How is this a long term sustainable trend?

I don't see how robbing Peter to pay Paul is going to work, when skilled labour can simply depart the country.. out of my 10 closest friends from high school/uni only 3 of us remain in NZ now... rest are in Singapore, Australia, Canada and the UK.

1) Who said anything about beneficiaries, I was talking min wage vs top bracket earners. Social welfare for unemployed / solo mums is another conversation, requiring different solutions and analysis due to actual vs social cost.

2) So in height of the capitalist boom (last 50 years) of more and more right wing ideology, your friends left anyway? I fail to see your point then.....

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542757 8-Nov-2011 19:01

Talkiet:

Clearly you didn't read or understand the table in that link above... I'll admit to not taking the 70% at absolute face value, although I trust (yes, trust) that it's not wildly wrong.

On the other hand, if you look _VERY_ carefully, you'll see a "Gross Tax Paid" column which shows that the over $150k (9.7%) household pay a Gross figure of 37%. That's before any transfers.

Hint. Read information properly when presented to you.

Cheers - N

You didnt present any information. You presented a right wing blog, asking the current finance minister questions, supported by a table of figures with no date, supporting data, or any information of any kind...

The same government that claims that it will create 170,000 jobs and see 4% growth at the same time as it cuts jobs..

Sounds like a Tui Ad....

But as your original statement was the rich pay more tax, i agreed. But only cos the poor dont have any money..... :)

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542760 8-Nov-2011 19:05

Ragnor: Then look at these, there is no future in how we are going....

Sickness benefit growth chart (pdf)

Invalid benefit numbers (pdf)

Ragnor, I dont disagree, however you are waay off base. Im not talking about either of those things...

But a quick point, " there is no future in how we are going.... " Do you mean looking after poor people or capitalism. Because you do understand they go hand in hand? Capitalism requires inequality....

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.

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542770 8-Nov-2011 19:28

MikeyPI:[snip]
If you didnt notice, my numbers were from Statistics NZ about the number of households in NZ. Rather than fictional numbers presented by a politician with a vested interest in manipulating the truth...

Care to launch an illogical attack on the Stats NZ? I may have left school at 15, but I continue my education, understanding & willingness to learn new things everyday..

I'm terribly sorry. Are you in fact suggesting that you are better informed about the economy and taxation than the Finance Minister who was apparently quoting Treasury stats?

If that in fact is your assertion, then I'll absolutely stop contradicting you.

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.

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542775 8-Nov-2011 19:36

MikeyPI:

You didnt present any information. You presented a right wing blog, asking the current finance minister questions, supported by a table of figures with no date, supporting data, or any information of any kind...

The same government that claims that it will create 170,000 jobs and see 4% growth at the same time as it cuts jobs..

Sounds like a Tui Ad....

But as your original statement was the rich pay more tax, i agreed. But only cos the poor dont have any money..... :)

Sorry, here's a more official link to the eschange in Parliament.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/b/7/7/49HansQ_20110713_00000002-2-Tax-System-Fairness.htm

Unfortunately that didn't include the numbers, which the 'right wing' blogger actually saw fit to obtain from the ministers office, so I linked to the article including:

a) A link to the parliamentary questions exchange
b) A relevant quote from the parliamentary site
c) A table of data relevant to the exchange obtained from the Finance Minister's office

I understand that this data is at odds with your belief, so it is hard to accept, but I posted it in a direct response to your challenge, quoted below (bold mine):

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.

Now you're apparently claiming that the Finance minister is wildly ill-informed and you in fact seem to have a better handle on the distribution of the NZ Tax dollar.

I'm disputing that, but I fear that your mind is absolutely made up.

Regards
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.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#542777 8-Nov-2011 19:38

MikeyPI: But as your original statement was the rich pay more tax, i agreed. But only cos the poor dont have any money..... :)

Ha ha, classic. That's one of the funniest statements I've read in a long time...

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542784 8-Nov-2011 19:45

MikeyPI:

You didnt present any information. You presented a right wing blog, asking the current finance minister questions, supported by a table of figures with no date, supporting data, or any information of any kind...

Update

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2011/taxpayers/02.htm#_whopaystax

I hope the treasury is a good enough source of the information for you.

Regards - 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

#542793 8-Nov-2011 20:05

Talkiet:
MikeyPI:[snip]
If you didnt notice, my numbers were from Statistics NZ about the number of households in NZ. Rather than fictional numbers presented by a politician with a vested interest in manipulating the truth...

Care to launch an illogical attack on the Stats NZ? I may have left school at 15, but I continue my education, understanding & willingness to learn new things everyday..

I'm terribly sorry. Are you in fact suggesting that you are better informed about the economy and taxation than the Finance Minister who was apparently quoting Treasury stats?

If that in fact is your assertion, then I'll absolutely stop contradicting you.

Cheers - N

this is getting tediuos.. You fail to address the questions put to you..

My numbers - Stats NZ(Quantified data) .. Yours numbers.. Kiwiblog via the Finance Minister(No data). Well sorry a table that at first glance doesnt seem to stack up that well. ( Stats isnt my thing, but glancing at it and reading comments on it, may ask a friend to take a look.)

Also once again please stop misrepresenting my argument.. I have tried to get this light hearted, and its not National v Labor for me, more misinformation & failed ideology from both.

This thread was about occupy wall street movement, which I support, contrary to the fact that system is my bread & butter, more so than most, but the fact is the left creates a welfare state, while the right destroy it. Both sides of the same coin; debt.

(thought I should segue back on topic!)

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#542800 8-Nov-2011 20:15

MikeyPI:

this is getting tediuos.. You fail to address the questions put to you..

My numbers - Stats NZ(Quantified data) .. Yours numbers.. Kiwiblog via the Finance Minister(No data). Well sorry a table that at first glance doesnt seem to stack up that well. ( Stats isnt my thing, but glancing at it and reading comments on it, may ask a friend to take a look.)

Check my post just above yours... It contains a link to a Treasury breakdown of the tax revenues per income band.

As it happens, I have done postgrad stats work but that's of little help here since there's next to nothing presented in the way of analysis. The data collection would be nice to examine, but again, I'm going to trust the treasury to know how much tax they collect.

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.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#542808 8-Nov-2011 20:22

This thread is as pointless as the Occupy whatever, full of hindsight attempts to find a cause.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#542819 8-Nov-2011 20:30

Talkiet:
MikeyPI:

You didnt present any information. You presented a right wing blog, asking the current finance minister questions, supported by a table of figures with no date, supporting data, or any information of any kind...

Update

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2011/taxpayers/02.htm#_whopaystax

I hope the treasury is a good enough source of the information for you.

Regards - N

Thats individual taxble income, old Bill was talking about households.

Now old Bill's prob used the magic politician calculator to confer that into his statement, but to arrive there he has to manipute data that doesnt support his statement, leaving out the fact Stats NZ proved his claims of 1.3mil households with neutral tax take is rubbish because their arent 1.3mil households to satrt with..

He also using multiple groups in each of his points some across all three; ie to get to his 10%, to have to go all the way down to the 80K-90K range, which would invariably been included in the under 110K household stats, as the dual / single income household numbers arent provided as 2 people working earning a combined 100K, with kids, is verrry different to one person earning 100K, mum not working to raise kids, & is taxed differently too.

Not the best data to support your argument but hey..

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 41