Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
495 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12

Subscriber

  Reply # 1494292 17-Feb-2016 20:22
Send private message

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 ?

 

 


290 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 72


  Reply # 1494356 17-Feb-2016 20:32
Send private message

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.

 
 
 
 


Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software
495 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12

Subscriber

  Reply # 1494360 17-Feb-2016 20:37
One person supports this post
Send private message

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 !!


2296 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1107


  Reply # 1494408 17-Feb-2016 21:27
Send private message

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.

 

 


2296 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1107


  Reply # 1494414 17-Feb-2016 21:38
Send private message

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?

 

 


891 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 46

Trusted

  Reply # 1494422 17-Feb-2016 21:53
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.





 



5047 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1017

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1494563 18-Feb-2016 07:02
Send private message

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'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet




5047 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1017

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1494564 18-Feb-2016 07:05
Send private message

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'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


891 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 46

Trusted

  Reply # 1494577 18-Feb-2016 08:05
Send private message

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)




 

11164 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3533

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1494679 18-Feb-2016 09:54
Send private message

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.






12123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5663

Trusted

  Reply # 1494695 18-Feb-2016 10:15
3 people support this post
Send private message

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.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


2296 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1107


  Reply # 1494780 18-Feb-2016 11:19
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

 

 


11885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2064

Trusted

  Reply # 1494806 18-Feb-2016 11:43
Send private message

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.


2296 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1107


  Reply # 1494809 18-Feb-2016 11:49
Send private message

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.

 

 


2814 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 682


  Reply # 1494813 18-Feb-2016 11:53
Send private message

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
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Lightbox updates platform with new streaming options
Posted 17-May-2018 13:09


Norton Core router launches with high-performance, IoT security in New Zealand
Posted 16-May-2018 02:00


D-Link ANZ launches new 4G LTE Dual SIM M2M VPN Router
Posted 15-May-2018 19:30


New Panasonic LUMIX FT7 ideal for outdoor: waterproof, dustproof
Posted 15-May-2018 19:17


Ryanair Goes All-In on AWS
Posted 15-May-2018 19:14


Te Papa and EQC Minecraft Mod shakes up earthquake education
Posted 15-May-2018 19:12


Framing Facebook: It’s not about technology
Posted 14-May-2018 16:02


Vocus works with NZ Police and telcos to stop scam calls
Posted 12-May-2018 11:12


Vista Group signs Aeon Entertainment, largest cinema chain in Japan
Posted 11-May-2018 21:41


New Privacy Trust Mark certifies privacy and customer control
Posted 10-May-2018 14:16


New app FIXR connects vehicle owners to top Mechanics at best prices
Posted 10-May-2018 14:13


Nutanix Beam gives enterprises control of the cloud
Posted 10-May-2018 14:09


D-Link ANZ launches Covr Seamless Wi-Fi System
Posted 10-May-2018 14:06


Telstra, Intel and Ericsson demonstrate a 5G future for esports
Posted 10-May-2018 13:59


Spark introduces Android One with Nokia 7 plus and Nokia 6.1
Posted 8-May-2018 05:00



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.