I'm depressed... help!

Forums › Off topic › I'm depressed... help!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#529020 4-Oct-2011 13:28

Linuxluver:
...Business people are typically dictators and - generally - make very poor politicians as they are temperamentally and experientially not used to hearing others out and negotiating agreeable outcomes....or admitting they might be wrong. Of course you can't tell them this either as they don't listen. Rinse and repeat...

While that might be a popular view it is not one that stands up in my experience.

I have worked in a number of countries and many organisations with CEO's, senior management and occasionally boards and I have in fact found the opposite to be the case. Well, let me put it another way, I and their own staff involved have always had a considerate and interested hearing from them, your own experience and that of others who provide advice or analysis to them may, of course, vary.

simplestuff

84 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#529032 4-Oct-2011 13:59

Very Interesting Calculator that started this forum. ( nationaldebtclock.com) Is it accurate or factual.

It would be interesting to have a historical one to see what we owed over various times. Then we could be more accurate about governments and who did what and spent what.

Interesting to note according to this calculator (converted to NZ dollars) per citizen

Australia owes around $8.340

NZ          $43.000.00

USA       $65.000.00

Greece   $50.000.00

Italy       $55.000.00

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#529033 4-Oct-2011 13:59

TheUngeek:
Linuxluver:
Business people are typically dictators and - generally - make very poor politicians as they are temperamentally and experientially not used to hearing others out and negotiating agreeable outcomes....or admitting they might be wrong. Of course you can't tell them this either as they don't listen. Rinse and repeat.

Pretty hard to build a big business if you can't do those things.

A business man actually building a business is unlikely to walk away and get involved in politics. To be clear, I wasn't talking about people who build businesses. I had in mind careerists, corporate bureaucrats and technocrats who imagine themselves to be businessmen and who the media and others probably incorrectly idenitify as businessmen.

For example, John Key didn't build Merrill Lynch. He didn't "build" anything. He pushed papers around speculative markets and made paper money. People doing the same jobs a few years later brought the company to its knees.

Now he is Prime Minister.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#529036 4-Oct-2011 14:06

John2010:
Linuxluver:
...Business people are typically dictators and - generally - make very poor politicians as they are temperamentally and experientially not used to hearing others out and negotiating agreeable outcomes....or admitting they might be wrong. Of course you can't tell them this either as they don't listen. Rinse and repeat...

While that might be a popular view it is not one that stands up in my experience.

I have worked in a number of countries and many organisations with CEO's, senior management and occasionally boards and I have in fact found the opposite to be the case. Well, let me put it another way, I and their own staff involved have always had a considerate and interested hearing from them, your own experience and that of others who provide advice or analysis to them may, of course, vary.

Agreed. I usually use the phrase "tend to be" rather than "are". It's more accurate and is fair to the many people who do actually understand what democracy is and how representation is supposed to work.

I had in mind the people who clearly don't. not sure why I typed "are"...I don't usually and should not have this time.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#529059 4-Oct-2011 14:28

Dude... even for this thread that's quite a broad, sweeping, unsubstantiated and meaningless generalisation.

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#529072 4-Oct-2011 14:43

Brendan:

43% of households in New Zealand receive more from the Government in support than they pay in tax.
17% of households in New Zealand pay a 97% of the net income tax collected by the Government.

Can we have some links to peer reviewed, official sources for that rather fantastic claim?

I did some digging the statements were repeated in mainstream media where I saw them, originally they were statements by the Finance minister.

This is the data the statements were based on which I believe is from the Treasury via the Ministers office

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

polglase

266 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Trusted

#529083 4-Oct-2011 14:56

Ragnor:
Brendan:

43% of households in New Zealand receive more from the Government in support than they pay in tax.
17% of households in New Zealand pay a 97% of the net income tax collected by the Government.

Can we have some links to peer reviewed, official sources for that rather fantastic claim?

I did some digging the statements were repeated in mainstream media where I saw them, originally they were statements by the Finance minister.

This is the data the statements were based on which I believe is from the Treasury via the Ministers office

Amazing, so up to $50,000 are effectively working beneficiaries. Up to $70,000 pay less than 10% of their income in tax.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#529094 4-Oct-2011 15:16

Ragnor: Dude... even for this thread that's quite a broad, sweeping, unsubstantiated and meaningless generalisation.

It certainly is broad. The meaning will be dependent on one's experience.

Can you provide an example to support an opposite contention? There will be some. But do you know any?

One measure is that business people tend (using the right language now) to not like MMP.

Why would they not like a voting system that results in fair, equitable representation in Parliament for every voter in NZ?

What other priorities might see them preferring voting systems that do NOT produce fair, equitable representation?

Those are the values and views I have in mind. As a tendency...it is a strong one.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

polglase

266 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Trusted

#529098 4-Oct-2011 15:39

Linuxluver:
Ragnor: Dude... even for this thread that's quite a broad, sweeping, unsubstantiated and meaningless generalisation.

It certainly is broad. The meaning will be dependent on one's experience.

Can you provide an example to support an opposite contention? There will be some. But do you know any?

One measure is that business people tend (using the right language now) to not like MMP.

Why would they not like a voting system that results in fair, equitable representation in Parliament for every voter in NZ?

What other priorities might see them preferring voting systems that do NOT produce fair, equitable representation?

Those are the values and views I have in mind. As a tendency...it is a strong one.

I guess you would class me as a business person, and I find it an offensive, broad, sweeping, unsubstantiated and meaningless generalisation.

Out if interest, I'm neutral on MMP. I do want a voting system that results in fair, equitable representation in Parliament for every voter in NZ. The only part that concerns me about MMP is when parties with a minority vote wield power that is disproportionate to their vote, but hey, no system is perfect. I probably agree with an earlier post that elections should be every four years as being a bigger issue.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#529143 4-Oct-2011 17:14

polglase:
Ragnor:
Brendan:

43% of households in New Zealand receive more from the Government in support than they pay in tax.
17% of households in New Zealand pay a 97% of the net income tax collected by the Government.

Can we have some links to peer reviewed, official sources for that rather fantastic claim?

I did some digging the statements were repeated in mainstream media where I saw them, originally they were statements by the Finance minister.

This is the data the statements were based on which I believe is from the Treasury via the Ministers office

Amazing, so up to $50,000 are effectively working beneficiaries. Up to $70,000 pay less than 10% of their income in tax.

No. The table covers income tax paid verses the amount paid back by the government in direct transfer of some kind.

For direct transfer read 'tax credit' or 'benefit' (but excluding national super).

The table does not cover other tax paid. For the lower bracket the biggest single item would be GST.

Considering households in the lower bracket tend to spend a higher proportion of total income on GST rated items (food, rent, transport) this changes the picture. Including GST would almost certainly take out the 20K to 30K and the 40K to 50K bands.

[Edit: paragraph layout only]

polglase

266 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Trusted

#529158 4-Oct-2011 17:33

gzt:
polglase:
Ragnor:
Brendan:

43% of households in New Zealand receive more from the Government in support than they pay in tax.
17% of households in New Zealand pay a 97% of the net income tax collected by the Government.

Can we have some links to peer reviewed, official sources for that rather fantastic claim?

I did some digging the statements were repeated in mainstream media where I saw them, originally they were statements by the Finance minister.

This is the data the statements were based on which I believe is from the Treasury via the Ministers office

Amazing, so up to $50,000 are effectively working beneficiaries. Up to $70,000 pay less than 10% of their income in tax.

No. The table covers income tax paid verses the amount paid back by the government in direct transfer of some kind.

For direct transfer read 'tax credit' or 'benefit' (but excluding national super).

The table does not cover other tax paid. For the lower bracket the biggest single item would be GST.

Considering households in the lower bracket tend to spend a higher proportion of total income on GST rated items (food, rent, transport) this changes the picture. Including GST would almost certainly take out the 20K to 30K and the 40K to 50K bands.

[Edit: paragraph layout only]

There is no GST on rent, so I was under the impression that households in the lower income brackets paid a lesser proportion of their total income on GST - do you have any sources?

It is a good point you make though.

Warning - speculation - Without knowing the facts I would guess that other rebates/benefits paid to low income (up to $50k) households would partially offset the GST these households pay still leaving them paying little to no tax after all rebates/benefits etc included???

Does anyone have any data on this?

A very interesting topic...

Samsung

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

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#529179 4-Oct-2011 21:00

polglase:
Linuxluver:
Ragnor: Dude... even for this thread that's quite a broad, sweeping, unsubstantiated and meaningless generalisation.

It certainly is broad. The meaning will be dependent on one's experience.

Can you provide an example to support an opposite contention? There will be some. But do you know any?

One measure is that business people tend (using the right language now) to not like MMP.

Why would they not like a voting system that results in fair, equitable representation in Parliament for every voter in NZ?

What other priorities might see them preferring voting systems that do NOT produce fair, equitable representation?

Those are the values and views I have in mind. As a tendency...it is a strong one.

I guess you would class me as a business person, and I find it an offensive, broad, sweeping, unsubstantiated and meaningless generalisation.

Out if interest, I'm neutral on MMP. I do want a voting system that results in fair, equitable representation in Parliament for every voter in NZ. The only part that concerns me about MMP is when parties with a minority vote wield power that is disproportionate to their vote, but hey, no system is perfect. I probably agree with an earlier post that elections should be every four years as being a bigger issue.

You're right. I wasn't fair to generalise as I did. I should have referred to it as a strong tendency...not a failing of all business people.

As for MMP, what is "disproportionate" power?

A government either has a majority...or it doesn't.

Those are the only proportions that really matter.

Example: If 61 out of 120 MPs don't back them...why pick on the smallest part of the 61 who don't support the Government? The reality is that a majority of the elected erpresentatives - from a variety of parties - do not support the Government. This "disproportionate power" meme is a fallacy. If you don't have a majority, you don't have a majority.

Sounds like bullying, to me. :-)

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#529206 4-Oct-2011 22:09

polglase:
gzt:
polglase:
Ragnor:
Brendan:

43% of households in New Zealand receive more from the Government in support than they pay in tax.
17% of households in New Zealand pay a 97% of the net income tax collected by the Government.

Can we have some links to peer reviewed, official sources for that rather fantastic claim?

I did some digging the statements were repeated in mainstream media where I saw them, originally they were statements by the Finance minister.

This is the data the statements were based on which I believe is from the Treasury via the Ministers office

Amazing, so up to $50,000 are effectively working beneficiaries. Up to $70,000 pay less than 10% of their income in tax.

No. The table covers income tax paid verses the amount paid back by the government in direct transfer of some kind.

For direct transfer read 'tax credit' or 'benefit' (but excluding national super).

The table does not cover other tax paid. For the lower bracket the biggest single item would be GST.

Considering households in the lower bracket tend to spend a higher proportion of total income on GST rated items (food, rent, transport) this changes the picture. Including GST would almost certainly take out the 20K to 30K and the 40K to 50K bands.

[Edit: paragraph layout only]

There is no GST on rent, so I was under the impression that households in the lower income brackets paid a lesser proportion of their total income on GST - do you have any sources?

[...]

Correct, there is no GST on rent, mortgage payments etc. Also a good question about the proportion of GST paid from income:

Source: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/cagtr/twg/Publications/GST_paper.pdf

This is a Tax Working Group paper prior to the recent GST rise. The graph is an estimate result of increasing GST to 15%. Incidentally, the previous graph with GST at 12.5% has a lesser spike at decile 3.

Just to reprise, this is somewhat incidental. The key point is that from a revenue vs debt generation point of view the taxable income table is misleading because it looks only at income tax and ignores other taxes paid.

polglase

266 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Trusted

#529266 4-Oct-2011 23:31

Linuxluver:
As for MMP, what is "disproportionate" power?

A government either has a majority...or it doesn't.

Those are the only proportions that really matter.

Example: If 61 out of 120 MPs don't back them...why pick on the smallest part of the 61 who don't support the Government? The reality is that a majority of the elected erpresentatives - from a variety of parties - do not support the Government. This "disproportionate power" meme is a fallacy. If you don't have a majority, you don't have a majority.

Sounds like bullying, to me. :-)

This is getting off topic, it really is a minor issue for me, I'm not that bothered by it.

All I meant to say is I don't like the situation that may arise where a party with one seat (or five etc) and perhaps 0.8% (or some other smallish number) of the vote could potentially hold the balance of power and choose the next government... the point being that a small minority party could, under MMP, potentially choose the winning party and therefore wield an amount of power in Government that is disproportional to their vote... do you see what I mean or am I missing something?

polglase

266 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Trusted

#529275 5-Oct-2011 00:07

gzt:
polglase:
gzt:
polglase:
Ragnor:
Brendan:

43% of households in New Zealand receive more from the Government in support than they pay in tax.
17% of households in New Zealand pay a 97% of the net income tax collected by the Government.

Can we have some links to peer reviewed, official sources for that rather fantastic claim?

I did some digging the statements were repeated in mainstream media where I saw them, originally they were statements by the Finance minister.

This is the data the statements were based on which I believe is from the Treasury via the Ministers office

Amazing, so up to $50,000 are effectively working beneficiaries. Up to $70,000 pay less than 10% of their income in tax.

No. The table covers income tax paid verses the amount paid back by the government in direct transfer of some kind.

For direct transfer read 'tax credit' or 'benefit' (but excluding national super).

The table does not cover other tax paid. For the lower bracket the biggest single item would be GST.

Considering households in the lower bracket tend to spend a higher proportion of total income on GST rated items (food, rent, transport) this changes the picture. Including GST would almost certainly take out the 20K to 30K and the 40K to 50K bands.

[Edit: paragraph layout only]

There is no GST on rent, so I was under the impression that households in the lower income brackets paid a lesser proportion of their total income on GST - do you have any sources?

[...]

Correct, there is no GST on rent, mortgage payments etc. Also a good question about the proportion of GST paid from income:

Source: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/cagtr/twg/Publications/GST_paper.pdf

This is a Tax Working Group paper prior to the recent GST rise. The graph is an estimate result of increasing GST to 15%. Incidentally, the previous graph with GST at 12.5% has a lesser spike at decile 3.

Just to reprise, this is somewhat incidental. The key point is that from a revenue vs debt generation point of view the taxable income table is misleading because it looks only at income tax and ignores other taxes paid.

I agree with your point, I was more surprised at how little net income tax so many pay. Even including GST from the working paper you have quoted households up to $45k would pay no tax, and those up to $65k will only be looking at around 15% in total.

Decile 1,2 and 3 are clearly beneficiaries. Although I didn't expect it to trend as it does in the graph (having no real knowledge previously) it is still remarkably flat from decile 4 ($38,000) through to decile 9 ($109,000), which is not a mile away from what I had expected (a spread of 1-2% trending the other way).

The topic however is debt, and this has relevance on the income side of the equation. My personal opinion is that raising taxes now would only push us towards recession and ultimately not increase the tax take, but I have no real qualification or data to back that up, just an opinion.

It is also personal debt that is the real issue, so raising taxes will only make it harder for households to save and/or repay debt.

Better to look at compulsory savings than increasing taxation as a means to repay household indebtedness.

I'm also against lowering taxes while the government is running a deficit as that too will only worsen the situation...

If it were me I would focus on reducing Government spending and increasing household savings, but interested in other's thoughts and input.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9