Gareth Morgan is a genius

Forums › Off topic › Gareth Morgan is a genius

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

7752 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4134

Reply # 1684886 8-Dec-2016 20:06

One person supports this post

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.

tdgeek

14808 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2770

Trusted

Reply # 1684894 8-Dec-2016 20:18

2 people support this post

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.

Fred99

7752 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4134

Reply # 1684898 8-Dec-2016 20:27

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.

tdgeek

14808 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2770

Trusted

Reply # 1684900 8-Dec-2016 20:34

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.

sxz

654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 149

Reply # 1684924 8-Dec-2016 21:18

5 people support this post

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.

Linuxluver

5279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1684931 8-Dec-2016 21:33

2 people support this post

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.

"Trickle-up" worked just fine.

____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet.

Fred99

7752 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4134

Reply # 1684961 8-Dec-2016 21:56

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.

JayADee

1554 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 227

Reply # 1684962 8-Dec-2016 21:56

One person supports this post

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.

You would still have to pay the tax. You would pay the tax on the equity. According to what he's been saying in interviews lately.

For example, if you bought a house for $500 000 and owed $300 000 on the mortgage you would pay tax on the $200 000. So you pay progressively more the more you pay off the mortgage until you are paying tax on the whole $500 000. The tax amount on it sounds significant. One example he cited on a $400 000 equity house was $7000. Then add your rates of, say, $2000 per year. Gareth argues you are getting a benefit from the house and should have to pay tax on that benefit... in effect you are paying rent on your house for living in it. Of course, one of the reasons us people buy a house in the first place (not forgetting the extra money we pay in insurance, upkeep, interest on the mortgage and improvements to make the place livable) is exactly to eventually not have to pay rents and mortgages and so not have that expense later in life! We pay it off in the shorter term so as not to have to pay it later which as someone pointed out is a type of saving. It isn't some scheme to not have to pay taxes or to make money, not on the family home it isn't. Plus as a number of others pointed out, the home is already taxed through rates.

Morgan says tax cuts 'should' offset the costs, but if you aren't making much or are a pensioner you won't have income to get tax cuts on. If as a pensioner your family house is your only asset (which presumably you bought so as not to be homeless in retirement) then you are right shafted. Morgan says not to worry, you can owe this tax to the IRD and pay it when you either die or sell. So work hard, pay off your mortgage then owe a brand new one to the IRD if you can't afford to pay your house tax for whatever reason- sickness or age. You get to age while watching the house you 'own' slowly begin to belong to the government. Of course, Gareth will never experience this. Sure he'll have to pay more in taxes but as he's already said in a couple interviews, he can afford it! Yup, sounds very fair.

What if the house owning pensioner wants to move, say to be closer to family support? Tough luck, sell the house means pay the tax and too bad if that means you can't afford to then buy another to live in?

Every money redistribution scheme is going to have someone paying, someone benefiting and some people breaking even. But wow Gareth is really laying into retirees and family home owners. I can only assume it's because he thinks they're all really well off. Or because he has no idea what it would be like to live on a pension or low wage with the house you own as your only asset. He seems quite willing to figuratively tear that away from people as they watch. It's like he's really got it in for the elderly.

Tax multiple properties all you like but leave the family home alone.

unsignedint

62 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 24

Reply # 1684964 8-Dec-2016 22:04

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.

JayADee

1554 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 227

Reply # 1684966 8-Dec-2016 22:07

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.

I agree with you here, PAYE earners in higher brackets do pay more tax with none of the ways to mitigate it that businesses and multiple property owners do but Morgan's idea isn't fair either (see my comment on owning a house but having low income).

mattwnz

14549 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1933

Reply # 1684968 8-Dec-2016 22:34

One person supports this post

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.

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.

Geektastic

12403 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4098

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1684972 8-Dec-2016 22:48

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?

Scott3

491 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 226

Reply # 1684975 8-Dec-2016 22:51

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.

All true, but I don't see why a tax system would want to discourage paid employment, and encourage say art, classic car, or housing speculation. I think they all deserve to be taxed evenly, rather than lumping the burden on those in PAYE employment.

dejadeadnz

1374 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1061

Subscriber

Reply # 1684978 8-Dec-2016 23:08

2 people support this post

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.

JayADee

1554 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 227

Reply # 1685002 9-Dec-2016 06:12

One person supports this post

France has a system like this but they seem to have a growing wealth disparity issue?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15