![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
tdgeek:
Fred99:
Rikkitic:
Something here sounds awfully familiar.
Yup.
It's the turbocharged whoosh of something flying straight in one ear - and straight out the other.
of the ones that don't subscribe to your opinions ]on this topic?
No.
I was the only person posting in this thread who didn't automatically knee-jerk myself into a wolf-pack like attack on Morgan. Nobody was offering anything more substantial than insults
Damned pathetic IMO - and it begged to be challenged. This isn't Breitbart.
Fred99:
tdgeek:
Fred99:
Rikkitic:
Something here sounds awfully familiar.
Yup.
It's the turbocharged whoosh of something flying straight in one ear - and straight out the other.
of the ones that don't subscribe to your opinions ]on this topic?
No.
I was the only person posting in this thread who didn't automatically knee-jerk myself into a wolf-pack like attack on Morgan. Nobody was offering anything more substantial than insults
Damned pathetic IMO - and it begged to be challenged. This isn't Breitbart.
Thats the thing. Many here are less than impressed by GM. You are impressed. And thats all fine, its about discussion. But you seem to take any non GM friendly posts as an insult to him. I doubt that its case of you being normal and everyone else being insulting. These are all opinions. As it happens, you appear to be in the minority on this topic.
tdgeek:
Fred99:
tdgeek:
Fred99:
Rikkitic:
Something here sounds awfully familiar.
Yup.
It's the turbocharged whoosh of something flying straight in one ear - and straight out the other.
of the ones that don't subscribe to your opinions ]on this topic?
No.
I was the only person posting in this thread who didn't automatically knee-jerk myself into a wolf-pack like attack on Morgan. Nobody was offering anything more substantial than insults
Damned pathetic IMO - and it begged to be challenged. This isn't Breitbart.
Thats the thing. Many here are less than impressed by GM. You are impressed. And thats all fine, its about discussion. But you seem to take any non GM friendly posts as an insult to him. I doubt that its case of you being normal and everyone else being insulting. These are all opinions. As it happens, you appear to be in the minority on this topic.
Being in a minority doesn't bother me.
I'm well aware that others aren't impressed by GM's "equity tax" proposal - that's very obvious. If you bother to read my first post, I repeated Morgan's own comment "that the policy would be as popular as a cup of cold sick" and made a comment myself "I'm sure that he's well aware that it's never going to fly."
Big mistake apparently, to suggest that the issue is discussed - rather than just attack Morgan and post silly one-liners.
Fred99:
tdgeek:
Fred99:
tdgeek:
Fred99:
Rikkitic:
Something here sounds awfully familiar.
Yup.
It's the turbocharged whoosh of something flying straight in one ear - and straight out the other.
of the ones that don't subscribe to your opinions ]on this topic?
No.
I was the only person posting in this thread who didn't automatically knee-jerk myself into a wolf-pack like attack on Morgan. Nobody was offering anything more substantial than insults
Damned pathetic IMO - and it begged to be challenged. This isn't Breitbart.
Thats the thing. Many here are less than impressed by GM. You are impressed. And thats all fine, its about discussion. But you seem to take any non GM friendly posts as an insult to him. I doubt that its case of you being normal and everyone else being insulting. These are all opinions. As it happens, you appear to be in the minority on this topic.
Being in a minority doesn't bother me.
I'm well aware that others aren't impressed by GM's "equity tax" proposal - that's very obvious. If you bother to read my first post, I repeated Morgan's own comment "that the policy would be as popular as a cup of cold sick" and made a comment myself "I'm sure that he's well aware that it's never going to fly."
Big mistake apparently, to suggest that the issue is discussed - rather than just attack Morgan and post silly one-liners.
I think most comments here were on GM's performance on the video, plus a few on his policies. Nothing wrong with being a minority, but I do see name calling too often.
In subjective topics, there is no right and wrong. But IMHO and with due respect, name calling or name inferring doesn't really help. I'm not saying that to inflame, but thats the trend I see at times from some. Ive done that myself.
I'm intrigued, and think it sounds like a good idea.
PAYE isn't exactly fair for employees. PAYE captures those who work hard to increase their salary (doctors, professionals, employees generally), but does not properly capturing those who chose to work hard to increase their capital instead (farmers, other business owners). It puts a disproportionate share of the tax burden onto those who by virtue of their chosen profession have high incomes, but are not able to grow a business asset - because they are employees.
Isn't it more fair therefore to calculate tax in a way that also captures those who build up their assets at the expense of their income?
Or put it this way - if it's fair that those who earn more pay more tax, isn't it also fair that those who have more pay more tax?
I am pleased GM has opened the debate.
Fred99:
As he's suggested that the policy would be as popular as a cup of cold sick, I'm sure that he's well aware that it's never going to fly.
However, given that there is increasing wealth disparity (note I'm saying wealth - not income in this case) which if it continues will put home ownership out of reach of anybody who doesn't have inherited wealth, perhaps some other positive suggestions / debate as to how it might be addressed may have been his point. I agree with him that the promise of "trickle-down" didn't really work.
_____________________________________________________________________
I've been on Geekzone over 15 years..... Time flies....
tdgeek:
I think most comments here were on GM's performance on the video, plus a few on his policies. Nothing wrong with being a minority, but I do see name calling too often.
In subjective topics, there is no right and wrong. But IMHO and with due respect, name calling or name inferring doesn't really help. I'm not saying that to inflame, but thats the trend I see at times from some. Ive done that myself.
I'm never impressed when interviews go the way that one did. Another one that appalled me was the hatchet job on Paul Henry a few weeks ago. Self inflicted? well - yes it was in a way, but the interviewer knew Henry's personal circumstances at the time, must have known that something wasn't right - but saw the opportunity to do a hatchet job to make themselves famous. I am not a Henry fan in any way, and there are a few boundaries that Henry crossed, but he did not deserve what happened there. Any decent person would have realised that something wasn't right, would have eased off the interview, and FFS offered the poor bugger a hand. God help us if we behave like that.
That slaughter of Morgan by Hosking was IMO deplorable. It's not about "right and wrong" but about respect and dignity. Morgan is opinionated, he's not conventional - but he is not an idiot, and he is not misanthropic. Why would Hosking bother to interview him if he wanted to exploit that (Morgan's eccentric personality) as an opportunity to thrash him?
I try not to "name call". Yup - I possibly lose it sometimes, but I hope you understand that there's a difference between calling an argument/position "idiotic" and calling the person making it an idiot.
Yes - most posts were about Morgan's performance and policy - but I didn't see any argument as to why the policies were "idiotic" - but a lot of name-calling about Morgan, as well as glee about how the interview went.
Even if I saw Trump being crucified in an interview like that, I'd have been appalled.
mudguard:mattwnz:But applying it to a family home is stupid, because it is impossible for a family home to generate income, unless you are renting out rooms etc.
I vaguely recall from the book, that you wouldn't pay anything whilst you still had a mortgage. But I could be wrong. I can't remember how they suggested getting around people paying off their mortgage to say $1 and leaving it.
I've never really thought about such a tax system before, but after some thought..
I think its a very interesting idea and really wish it would get some more (fair) coverage and analysis. Worth thinking about. The upcoming generation will be cash rich and asset poor.
Hard to make a dent on a $2m house. Tax 'em. Sounds fair, they can always sell and collect the $1.5m+(?) that they probably "made" on it :-)
I don't think rates are the same thing since its proportional so doesn't capture the actual increases in property values.
Finally, I don't get why Paul Henry said its "not aspirational" when it seems like reducing income tax significantly seems like a pretty good reason to bother to work more/harder etc.
In reality, though, I think its far too "out there" for NZ. Shame.
sxz:I'm intrigued, and think it sounds like a good idea.
PAYE isn't exactly fair for employees. PAYE captures those who work hard to increase their salary (doctors, professionals, employees generally), but does not properly capturing those who chose to work hard to increase their capital instead (farmers, other business owners). It puts a disproportionate share of the tax burden onto those who by virtue of their chosen profession have high incomes, but are not able to grow a business asset - because they are employees.
Isn't it more fair therefore to calculate tax in a way that also captures those who build up their assets at the expense of their income?
Or put it this way - if it's fair that those who earn more pay more tax, isn't it also fair that those who have more pay more tax?
I am pleased GM has opened the debate.
sxz:I'm intrigued, and think it sounds like a good idea.
PAYE isn't exactly fair for employees. PAYE captures those who work hard to increase their salary (doctors, professionals, employees generally), but does not properly capturing those who chose to work hard to increase their capital instead (farmers, other business owners). It puts a disproportionate share of the tax burden onto those who by virtue of their chosen profession have high incomes, but are not able to grow a business asset - because they are employees.
Isn't it more fair therefore to calculate tax in a way that also captures those who build up their assets at the expense of their income?
Or put it this way - if it's fair that those who earn more pay more tax, isn't it also fair that those who have more pay more tax?
I am pleased GM has opened the debate.
sxz:
I'm intrigued, and think it sounds like a good idea.
PAYE isn't exactly fair for employees. PAYE captures those who work hard to increase their salary (doctors, professionals, employees generally), but does not properly capturing those who chose to work hard to increase their capital instead (farmers, other business owners). It puts a disproportionate share of the tax burden onto those who by virtue of their chosen profession have high incomes, but are not able to grow a business asset - because they are employees.
Isn't it more fair therefore to calculate tax in a way that also captures those who build up their assets at the expense of their income?
Or put it this way - if it's fair that those who earn more pay more tax, isn't it also fair that those who have more pay more tax?
I am pleased GM has opened the debate.
So how do you tax people who earn more and own more? Twice?
mattwnz:
Employees though don't have the same stresses that comes with being a business owner, who benefits from this. Also there are significant risks with any business, including competition. All employees have the option to setup their own business. Eg. A doctor can setup their own practice. It largely comes down to lifestyle, and whether an employee wants that 247 stress that a business often has.
The one-liners filled peeing contest between the usual suspects in this thread is about as low quality as the performances by the protagonists in the Paul Henry interview.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |