"Cash only" jobs.

Forums › Off topic › "Cash only" jobs.

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

744 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1494292 17-Feb-2016 20:22

surfisup1000:

Linuxluver:

Maybe if we all call the IRD and report all these cowboys cheating on their income tax and GST it might reduce the amount of tax evasion.....or are well all corrupt, too?

I'm more concerned about the big corporates who use complex tax shelters to pay little or no tax. Maybe google pays even less tax than that tradie which is obscene.

Tradies shouldn't be doing it but it is very difficult to prevent it.

Sanitarium comes to mind here. They are a big tax evader or not ?

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

SheriffNZ

671 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1494356 17-Feb-2016 20:32

3puttssuck:
surfisup1000:

Linuxluver:

Maybe if we all call the IRD and report all these cowboys cheating on their income tax and GST it might reduce the amount of tax evasion.....or are well all corrupt, too?

I'm more concerned about the big corporates who use complex tax shelters to pay little or no tax. Maybe google pays even less tax than that tradie which is obscene.

Tradies shouldn't be doing it but it is very difficult to prevent it.

Sanitarium comes to mind here. They are a big tax evader or not ?

If they were evading, they'd be breaking the law. I doubt Sanitarium are breaking the law, merely using the laws that have been put in place to their advantage.

3puttssuck

744 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1494360 17-Feb-2016 20:37

SheriffNZ:
3puttssuck:

surfisup1000:

Linuxluver:

Maybe if we all call the IRD and report all these cowboys cheating on their income tax and GST it might reduce the amount of tax evasion.....or are well all corrupt, too?

I'm more concerned about the big corporates who use complex tax shelters to pay little or no tax. Maybe google pays even less tax than that tradie which is obscene.

Tradies shouldn't be doing it but it is very difficult to prevent it.

Sanitarium comes to mind here. They are a big tax evader or not ?

If they were evading, they'd be breaking the law. I doubt Sanitarium are breaking the law, merely using the laws that have been put in place to their advantage.

Yes, good point. I should have worded it differently. But it still annoys the heck out of me that they are able to do it with in the law. Change the law !!

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1494408 17-Feb-2016 21:27

Geektastic:

Geektastic:

However if you are receiving more back than you put in you are not really a taxpayer, are you? See this exchange from Parliament:

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.

If you get back more than you put in, you are not paying more taxes. You're paying no taxes. The fact that you pay a bill that says "tax" does not make you much of a taxpayer if the government then in effect refunds it.

Arguably it is pointless collecting it if you intend to return it as all it does is add cost, but that is a whole other kettle of fish.

It appears that you missed my earlier response.

The Govt is *not* refunding it. It is giving it to someone else who is poor.

The statement by Bill English deliberately conflates 2 groups (poor and middle-class) to make the rich look good. The middle class *do* pay taxes, but (if Hon BILL ENGLISH is to be believed) those taxes are all distributed to the poor.

This could be back-spun to say that the rich pay nothing for social services, because all of that is paid for by the middle class.

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1494414 17-Feb-2016 21:38

Linuxluver:

Geektastic:

If I pay $50,000 in tax and the government gives me $60,000 in "transfers", it is clear that whilst I may have paid a bill marked 'Income Tax' I have not in fact actually paid any tax.

That is simply wrong. You paid $50,000 in tax. You said so yourself.

Sure, you may receive some kind of subsidy or other support or benefit for whatever reason - but that is aside and separate from the simple fact you earned income that was liable for tax...and you paid it.

This topic was about people who don't do that. They cheat.

Geektastic has put up a strawman. If you pay $50,000 in income tax (which is what Bill English's statement was about), then your taxable income must have been (I guess) in the region of $150,000. In this case, there's no way you could be claiming $60,000 in unemployment benefit, DPB, or student allowances, or whatever. I'd suggest that anyone who *can* do that is a cheat. Also, $150,000+ household income puts you outside the below $110,000 group that this relates to.

So, let's look at some realistic figures: You pay $5,000 in income tax and get $6,000 back. What income do you need to pay $5,000? Bearing that English was talking about *household* incomes, can you not envisage a household which can't survive on that, and therefore is actually deserving of a $6,000 topup?

TinyTim

1041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1494422 17-Feb-2016 21:53

3puttssuck:

SheriffNZ:

3puttssuck:

Sanitarium comes to mind here. They are a big tax evader or not ?

If they were evading, they'd be breaking the law. I doubt Sanitarium are breaking the law, merely using the laws that have been put in place to their advantage.

Yes, good point. I should have worded it differently. But it still annoys the heck out of me that they are able to do it with in the law. Change the law !!

Registered charities pay no tax because their profits can only be used for charitable purposes (as defined by law). They cannot be used for the personal benefit of their owners or shareholders or anyone else.

It's the same as any business giving away all its pre-tax profit to charities (as a taxable expense) so its taxable profit is zero. Is that tax avoidance?

Same goes for individuals and their donations rebates.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1494563 18-Feb-2016 07:02

3puttssuck:

surfisup1000:

Linuxluver:

Maybe if we all call the IRD and report all these cowboys cheating on their income tax and GST it might reduce the amount of tax evasion.....or are well all corrupt, too?

I'm more concerned about the big corporates who use complex tax shelters to pay little or no tax. Maybe google pays even less tax than that tradie which is obscene.

Tradies shouldn't be doing it but it is very difficult to prevent it.

Sanitarium comes to mind here. They are a big tax evader or not ?

They are owned by a church....so they claim to not be liable for tax (IIRC).

Churches should be taxed.

_____________________________________________________________________

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

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1494564 18-Feb-2016 07:05

frankv:

Geektastic has put up a strawman. If you pay $50,000 in income tax (which is what Bill English's statement was about), then your taxable income must have been (I guess) in the region of $150,000. In this case, there's no way you could be claiming $60,000 in unemployment benefit, DPB, or student allowances, or whatever. I'd suggest that anyone who *can* do that is a cheat. Also, $150,000+ household income puts you outside the below $110,000 group that this relates to.

So, let's look at some realistic figures: You pay $5,000 in income tax and get $6,000 back. What income do you need to pay $5,000? Bearing that English was talking about *household* incomes, can you not envisage a household which can't survive on that, and therefore is actually deserving of a $6,000 topup?

I took his numbers as being hypothetical. But it certainly is possible that someone aged 70 could have an annual income of $150,000 and at the same time receive superannuation (which would be a LOT less than $60,000!!). But it doesn't matter. If you pay tax you pay tax...and any benefits or subsidies you may receive do not alter the fact you're paid tax, regardless of the amounts.

_____________________________________________________________________

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

TinyTim

1041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1494577 18-Feb-2016 08:05

Linuxluver:
3puttssuck:

surfisup1000:

Linuxluver:

Maybe if we all call the IRD and report all these cowboys cheating on their income tax and GST it might reduce the amount of tax evasion.....or are well all corrupt, too?

I'm more concerned about the big corporates who use complex tax shelters to pay little or no tax. Maybe google pays even less tax than that tradie which is obscene.

Tradies shouldn't be doing it but it is very difficult to prevent it.

Sanitarium comes to mind here. They are a big tax evader or not ?

They are owned by a church....so they claim to not be liable for tax (IIRC).

Churches should be taxed.

In my post above I assumed everyone knew this connection: Sanitarium is owned by the seventh day adventist church which is a registered charity.

Churches can apply to be charities because the government recognises the work they do in the community. (Think of the Salvation Army, Presbyterian Support etc.) The government outsources an awful lot of social work to them.

(Sorry for the OT)

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1494679 18-Feb-2016 09:54

frankv:

Linuxluver:

Geektastic:

If I pay $50,000 in tax and the government gives me $60,000 in "transfers", it is clear that whilst I may have paid a bill marked 'Income Tax' I have not in fact actually paid any tax.

That is simply wrong. You paid $50,000 in tax. You said so yourself.

Sure, you may receive some kind of subsidy or other support or benefit for whatever reason - but that is aside and separate from the simple fact you earned income that was liable for tax...and you paid it.

This topic was about people who don't do that. They cheat.

Geektastic has put up a strawman. If you pay $50,000 in income tax (which is what Bill English's statement was about), then your taxable income must have been (I guess) in the region of $150,000. In this case, there's no way you could be claiming $60,000 in unemployment benefit, DPB, or student allowances, or whatever. I'd suggest that anyone who *can* do that is a cheat. Also, $150,000+ household income puts you outside the below $110,000 group that this relates to.

So, let's look at some realistic figures: You pay $5,000 in income tax and get $6,000 back. What income do you need to pay $5,000? Bearing that English was talking about *household* incomes, can you not envisage a household which can't survive on that, and therefore is actually deserving of a $6,000 topup?

The number was the first one that popped into my head. I can rephrase it: if you pay $10,000 in tax and the government gives you $15,000 back, you still have received $5000 more than you paid, therefore you actually contributed negative $5000 to the nation and it's services.

And since I do not believe anyone is "deserving" of any "top up" they don't earn, that particular argument will not convince me of anything. That is OT though.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1494695 18-Feb-2016 10:15

Geektastic:

frankv:

Linuxluver:

Geektastic:

If I pay $50,000 in tax and the government gives me $60,000 in "transfers", it is clear that whilst I may have paid a bill marked 'Income Tax' I have not in fact actually paid any tax.

That is simply wrong. You paid $50,000 in tax. You said so yourself.

Sure, you may receive some kind of subsidy or other support or benefit for whatever reason - but that is aside and separate from the simple fact you earned income that was liable for tax...and you paid it.

This topic was about people who don't do that. They cheat.

Geektastic has put up a strawman. If you pay $50,000 in income tax (which is what Bill English's statement was about), then your taxable income must have been (I guess) in the region of $150,000. In this case, there's no way you could be claiming $60,000 in unemployment benefit, DPB, or student allowances, or whatever. I'd suggest that anyone who *can* do that is a cheat. Also, $150,000+ household income puts you outside the below $110,000 group that this relates to.

So, let's look at some realistic figures: You pay $5,000 in income tax and get $6,000 back. What income do you need to pay $5,000? Bearing that English was talking about *household* incomes, can you not envisage a household which can't survive on that, and therefore is actually deserving of a $6,000 topup?

The number was the first one that popped into my head. I can rephrase it: if you pay $10,000 in tax and the government gives you $15,000 back, you still have received $5000 more than you paid, therefore you actually contributed negative $5000 to the nation and it's services.

And since I do not believe anyone is "deserving" of any "top up" they don't earn, that particular argument will not convince me of anything. That is OT though.

That is a huge and horrible conclusion that someone who is supported by Government assistance does not contribute to society.

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1494780 18-Feb-2016 11:19

Geektastic:

The number was the first one that popped into my head. I can rephrase it: if you pay $10,000 in tax and the government gives you $15,000 back, you still have received $5000 more than you paid, therefore you actually contributed negative $5000 to the nation and it's services.

OK, looking at these numbers. From IRD's tax calculator, $10K in tax means a taxable income of $57,600. I went through WINZ's "What you might get" page as a mythical Aucklander with no dependents renting a house for $500 per week. I could get $210 per week ($10900 for 52 weeks) plus an accommodation supplement that I would have to call WINZ to find out what it was. I'll arbitrarily assume that they'll be generous enough to pay $400 per week = $20800pa. To achieve the "$10000 paid-$15000 refunded" scenario, this person would have to work for 6 months (at an annual salary of $115,200!) and then be looking for work for 6 months ($5900 in jobseeker support (less stand-down periods and application time of 2-3 weeks) and $10,400 in accommodation supplement).

Obviously these numbers will vary somewhat depending on circumstances (dependent children, partner, etc). But also remember that English was talking about household income. All in all, I don't believe that there are any people in the "$10,000 paid, $15,000 refund" boat. I *can* believe that there are people in the "$5,000 paid, $15,000 refund"... but they're earning about $35,000 p.a., well below the $38,000 poverty level. And most of that "refund" would be going directly to the landlord, not the beneficiary.

And since I do not believe anyone is "deserving" of any "top up" they don't earn, that particular argument will not convince me of anything. That is OT though.

People deserve to have enough to eat and drink, housing, health, and education, just by being people.

tdgeek

29587 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1494806 18-Feb-2016 11:43

frankv:

Geektastic:

The number was the first one that popped into my head. I can rephrase it: if you pay $10,000 in tax and the government gives you $15,000 back, you still have received $5000 more than you paid, therefore you actually contributed negative $5000 to the nation and it's services.

OK, looking at these numbers. From IRD's tax calculator, $10K in tax means a taxable income of $57,600. I went through WINZ's "What you might get" page as a mythical Aucklander with no dependents renting a house for $500 per week. I could get $210 per week ($10900 for 52 weeks) plus an accommodation supplement that I would have to call WINZ to find out what it was. I'll arbitrarily assume that they'll be generous enough to pay $400 per week = $20800pa. To achieve the "$10000 paid-$15000 refunded" scenario, this person would have to work for 6 months (at an annual salary of $115,200!) and then be looking for work for 6 months ($5900 in jobseeker support (less stand-down periods and application time of 2-3 weeks) and $10,400 in accommodation supplement).

Obviously these numbers will vary somewhat depending on circumstances (dependent children, partner, etc). But also remember that English was talking about household income. All in all, I don't believe that there are any people in the "$10,000 paid, $15,000 refund" boat. I *can* believe that there are people in the "$5,000 paid, $15,000 refund"... but they're earning about $35,000 p.a., well below the $38,000 poverty level. And most of that "refund" would be going directly to the landlord, not the beneficiary.

And since I do not believe anyone is "deserving" of any "top up" they don't earn, that particular argument will not convince me of anything. That is OT though.

People deserve to have enough to eat and drink, housing, health, and education, just by being people.

We live in a society where taxes pay for stuff, and part of that stuff is supporting those that cannot support themselves. Those who are disabled, cannot get a job, had their house trashed by earthquakes, thats what support is for. All for one and one for all.

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1494809 18-Feb-2016 11:49

tdgeek:

We live in a society where taxes pay for stuff, and part of that stuff is supporting those that cannot support themselves. Those who are disabled, cannot get a job, had their house trashed by earthquakes, thats what support is for. All for one and one for all.

Yup! And remember.... we're all only one big accident (or at most 65 years) away from becoming a beneficiary ourselves.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1494813 18-Feb-2016 11:53

tdgeek:

frankv:

Geektastic:

And since I do not believe anyone is "deserving" of any "top up" they don't earn, that particular argument will not convince me of anything. That is OT though.

People deserve to have enough to eat and drink, housing, health, and education, just by being people.

We live in a society where taxes pay for stuff, and part of that stuff is supporting those that cannot support themselves. Those who are disabled, cannot get a job, had their house trashed by earthquakes, thats what support is for. All for one and one for all.

Don't poke the bear! Luckily it's a minority in NZ that support such a laissez-faire approach that certain curmudgeons on GZ espouse...

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