Called out NZ Firsts richard prosser and their proposal to nationilse energy companies at $3.10 a share when they are trading at $5.85. "But that makes me really angry - what a f##king idiot"
Printable View
Called out NZ Firsts richard prosser and their proposal to nationilse energy companies at $3.10 a share when they are trading at $5.85. "But that makes me really angry - what a f##king idiot"
I hear tonight Winston says richard is abit confused about the policy. Bodes well for the future
I concur. What an idiotic policy from NZ First or just a big boo-boo from MP Richard Prosser. But not my party vote for them then :t_down:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11909463
"The Act leader has frequently clashed with NZ First leader Winston Peters, including on Twitter recently when Peters likened him to a chihuahua."
lol, thumbs up from me too
Surprised he let this guy out ...he has form ... Now about that Financial advice ...anyone looking into that ...?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/chr...after-Wogistan
Might be the first time I agree with David Seymour but I think he hit the nail on the head. More so after skim reading stop/losses link. How many more turkeys will Winston drag into parliament with him. Had a quick look at where Prosser is on the NZ First list number 3 previously. No way I would vote for dicks like that, surprised NZ First is polling so well.
Mind you, that said I am keen to vote for the TOP party and have no idea of whose involved there other than Gareth Morgan. I didn't see a BullishBear on the list at Wikipedia.
After the Metiria admissions and the fact she stood for Mcgillicudy Serious party as well as having no issue with lying, you have to wonder about the quality of MPs. maybe they are not that different to me. Admittedly I say a lot of dumb, racist, sexist things at home like Prosser but would expect better things from the leaders of our country.
Not according to the defintion of those doctrines. I dont think TOP wants to nationalise the means of production etc.. It is not socialist.I think one of the more (independent) business friendly parties. You need to look at Prosser (NZF) for a Socialist/Communist policy.
TOP business policy summary http://www.top.org.nz/top14
Why is an asset tax more socialist than an income tax? Indeed I think TOP reforms would actually encourage individual capitalist endeavour by encouraging the investment into income producing capital assets as opposed to non-income producing assets.
TOP wants to slash income tax which would be of particular benefit for those on the current top rates. Why is an annual tax on your house any more of a "socialist" concept than annual rates charged on the capital value of your house?
Besides all nz parities (including ACT) are socialist according to the second aspect of the following definition of socialism. TOP is not socialist according to the first part of the definition.
Socialism:
noun
- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (my highlight)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
I think you will find if you have read FP's previous posts that he has made his money in real estate and has enjoyed tax free capital gains all his life(Yes you paid tax on the rent FP well done but be honest capital gains is what made you rich). An equity tax would be unthinkable and abhorrent to the likes of FP. I guess communism is the worst insult he could find even if it isn't correct.
In my opinion David Seymour heading the TOP party sounds insane, ACTs ideologies are almost at the opposite ends of the political spectrum (although TOP party is not even close to communism FP) to the TOP parties even if they both think it is the best way forward for the country. My understanding TOP is wanting to try and make society fairer/better(there is no perfect solution though) for as many people as possible whereas ACT's policies would tend to disproportionately benefit a smaller portion of society. David Seymour probably still believes in the trickle down theory for a better society.
To be honest a retired person living in a multi million dollar beach front mansion without any other investments would get right royally screwed by the equity tax so should never vote TOP out of self interest. And although these people would be worse off under a TOP govt I don't think they are the ones genuinely struggling to get by. It might even get some people thinking about investing in something other than just the most expensive house they can afford.
I think if we were totally honest we would admit that we buy rentals on the expectation the capital value will increase even if our intent is to invest to derive a weekly income.
Same with shares in a start up that isnt making a profit.
So the capitalist tax avoider in me says no to cspital gains tax.
But the equitable payment of tax on all gain says CGT may make some sense
There will of course be unintended consequences - like rent rising to cover future tax bill or maitenance deferred to accrue for liability.
People will always try to minimise tax, no matter the type. If an asset tax was associated with the individual assets, I am not sure if they could be avoided as easily as incomes accruing to individuals.
I think you are right about an asset tax being unpopular...there are still a great number of Owner occupiers who would shudder at the though of their investments in their homes being subject to an asset tax (in addition to rates?) However just because it would be popular, does not make it any more socialist than other revenue raising measures...
Investments in one's own home (as opposed to investments in businesses and companies) have always had a privileged position in NZ's revenue raising system. So obviously there is a strong feeling held by many of entitlement that this privilege continue. However as home ownership is increasingly unattainable for many, it could be time to review the tax system to ensure NZ's capital is being taxed fairly, and is being deployed efficiently and effectively.
An unlikely combination I agree, but it would be a combination I would like! I do think that TOPs tax reform would lead to more investment in commercial (as opposed to investment in high priced land) profitable businesses. I would envisage a boost to the NZ stock market and fewer nz businesses ending up being owned by foreign concerns. So in that respect, TOP could boost NZ capitalism.
Come on don't be modest FP. You sure your not rich? I can't argue with you on that as I don't have a definition for rich in NZ. I used to be concerned about the top ten percent owning all the wealth until I realised just being born in NZ might put me in the top ten percent globally. I didn't see it as a big problem after that.
An equity tax would not be popular. I can agree with you on that. I have yet to see a popular tax of any description. A disincentive??. What do you mean by that? A disincentive to invest and grow your wealth? I am not sure about that. Would you prefer to be homeless rather than paying an equity tax? Personally I wouldn't. We have an income tax and last time I looked most people were still working. The income tax is not popular, at all but people still work. An equity tax would help to spread the load more evenly maybe. The example that gets trotted out is someone living in a million dollar house pays no tax on the rental benefit but a person with a million dollar term deposit pays tax on the interest benefit. Even worse the guy working his guts out day to day to get ahead pays income tax on his hard earned income while the guy who has a large portfolio of appreciating assets only pays tax on the income they produce not the capital gain. He may not even work very hard for the capital gain. An economic system that requires 2% inflation every year pretty much guarantees his success.
And to quote Bjauck
"Investments in one's own home (as opposed to investments in businesses and companies) have always had a privileged position in NZ's revenue raising system. So obviously there is a strong feeling held by many of entitlement that this privilege continue. However as home ownership is increasingly unattainable for many, it could be time to review the tax system to ensure NZ's capital is being taxed fairly, and is being deployed efficiently and effectively."
Talking of communism Prosser's statement regarding power companies sounds a lot more like communism to me.
Kerry Packer summed it up:
"I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."
A reasonable fair taxation system usually means that the incentives for evasion are deterred by the likelihood of enforcement and penalty and that the incentives for avoidance are not usually cost-effective enough to bother. Many countries that have reduced high marginal tax rates for income often collect more tax revenues when they have reduced rates and increased enforcement/penalties as the reward for evasion is lowered and the deterrence factor raised.
In terms of TOPs tax policy, wealth taxes such as land tax presume that an asset actually produces an income that can fund the tax - most of the time there have been exemptions for the family home as an owner-occupier doesn't have an income stream such as a rental although the countervailing argument is that they don't have to pay rent instead. You could argue that a pensioner living in a mortgage free house in Auckland is sitting on $1m (based on a median value) and they could sell their home instead and release it to the market to fund their retirement but as a society we have to consider if that means that they have to rent or move outside of the area that they have lived their lives because arbitrarily the market now values their home at a level that they are considered wealthy - so it's complicated.
We could start means testing the pension instead (wealth tax by stealth) or tax cash-poor and asset-rich folk out of their homes - but neither is going to make middle New Zealand particularly happy especially when they find their parents spending their inheritance on rent or moving in with them.
The net benefit derived from investing one's capital in one's home is currently tax free whereas if that capital had been invested in a business instead, all the profits/net benefits derived therefrom would be taxed. So the incentive is there to build up the nest egg by way of an expensive home rather than by way of a prifitable business or portfolio of financial investments. The stats for NZ household wealth bear that out.
If there is to be a change to the tax system. I would suggest that the change be gradually phased in, so that the pensioners who have relied on the current tax system are not unduly affected. For example, if a single pensioner without much other income is living alone in a multi-million dollar house, then the asset tax (to the extent it would exceed the income tax payable) should be allowed to accrue as a charge on the property.
With an asset tax, eventually I would anticipate that residential property values (and other assets currently producing little taxable income) would settle at more affordable and realistic prices than as currently under the current tax system.
Middle NZ may find that their kids would be able to afford to buy their own homes and move out of home.
Im not sure that is true. If I buy a share (part of a business) for $5 (capital), and this business does well and I sell it down the track for $10, I have a tax free gain.
If I buy a house for $5 and down the track I sell it for $10 I also have a tax free gain.
If my business pays me a dividend of $1 I pay tax on that $1. IF my house provides me rent of $1 I pay tax on that rent.
If I borrow to buy my share in the business, the interest is tax deductible.
If I borrow to buy my house, the interest is also tax deductible.
I fail to see the difference?
The discussion had been on owner-occupied housing (one's own home.) So it will never pay you a taxable rent as you live in it without having to pay tax on the value to you of being able to do that (i.e. the dividend from the equity in owner-occupied housing is always tax free). Despite being unprofitable, experience has shown that owner-occupied residential housing increases in capital value! If you rent out a room in your home, then that is a different matter.
With shares in listed companies - you can get those that do not pay dividends yet do go up in value. Many are companies in their growth phase with hopes of becoming profitable in the future. Also some have investments in land...
However it is difficult to get banks to lend you money to invest in shares - so your chance of leveraging as many capital profits as with land or houses is more limited.
If a business has no prospect of being able to afford to pay its participants/employees an income or turning a profit, is it in fact a business? Whereas owner-occupied housing will under the present system never be profitable or tax-paying except in so far as it pays rates (which in effect is payment for services rendered anyway.)
Your right fairness and equity do not top self interest. How else has National stayed in power so long if it weren't for the universal pension bribe and finding capital gains taxes too difficult to comprehend let alone discuss.
Our GST is one of the most pure in the world. I don't think I have come across another consumption tax that didn't have exemptions for basic foodstuffs. That got past the voters though. Maybe NZers aren't that bright or perhaps they don't care if it is a regressive tax as it only hurts the poor and the poor don't vote or don't appreciate they are getting a raw deal.
That's why I had the final comment: "We could start means testing the pension instead (wealth tax by stealth) or tax cash-poor and asset-rich folk out of their homes - but neither is going to make middle New Zealand particularly happy especially when they find their parents spending their inheritance on rent or moving in with them."
It's a dead duck whatever the merits because it's not a policy that's electorally acceptable at the current time. That's not to say it won't be in time - if you'd asked people 30 years ago when they scrapped the Auckland Harbour Bridge Tolls that they would be tolled for using the motorway or entering the main city, you'd have been laughed as much as the Takapuna City Mayoral candidate who said his main objective was to have barriers, bells and signals at every level crossing in the city (he was from out of town and seemed unaware that there is no rail on the North Shore).
In any case, if you slowly boil the frog then progressively you might get there but it's too big a leap right now for the electorate and I'm sceptical it will actually make any difference to the housing market in the long term.
Changing the current tax advantages for those who own their own homes would definitely be electorally unpopular at the moment. But this may change if home ownership rates continue to slide and more of the voting segment of the population may find they cannot afford home ownership...
Other countries try to address these tax advantages by having tax free financial investment allowances. Not in NZ however, so kiwis stuff as much as money and credit as possible into the expensive family home. Hardly any money is left over for investing into shares, which has helped to result in a small share market and so many of our successful companies being owned by foreigners.
Seymours policy takes center stage and is thoroughly explained in his book. even if you don't like the guy, he has a solid, understandable set of principles that anyone here would more or less respect if they took the time to read his book without a predisposition to hating whatever he says.
If you slap a National logo on top of ACT's policy portfolio you would have a winning campaign - National are not prepared to deviate to a place that will keep the young and forgotten happy enough - where the Labour/Greens/NZF have big change planned, but all while towing a huge fiscal burden behind itself - not sure why throwing even more money at a bunch bureaucrats with no skin in the game would be advantageous to one of the greatest cash burners known to man " the government" ( this is satirical, but sort of true )
My understanding of NZ politics is that National will forever have a huge voter base that could not fathom voting for the " fiscally loose, social policies" that come with L/G/NZF - it, of course works both ways with people hating National for anything and everything ( more or less lack of anything ) they do, but these voters are not always convinced by the opposition parties and have to be enthused and pushed into the voting booth. ( Jacinda has the momentum with these fringe voters )
Politics always brings out the worst in people, it often divides a set of seemingly intelligent individuals and moulds them into one great big mass of ones and twos - in politics there are only binary options despite what MMP sets out to achieve.
All in all, I am voting ACT and I believe if you take the time to read Seymour's book, research his policy and see for yourself how it has been executed overseas you might just do the same.
I appreciate any opinions you have on how my vote for ACT is wrong and I am happy to change my opinion if persuaded by a solid argument.
We should remember are both essentially left to centrist parties. Both want to tax as much as the can. Both want everyone to be beneficiaries. Neither are business friendly. Both dreaming if harming NZérs will change the climate. Both feeding a sense of entitlement, You need to look at the other parties for clear alternatives
The USA have tax deferred401k retirement plans, which encourage larger retirement savings more effectively than the fixed tax credit for KiwiSaver. Also there are non-retirement tax preferred
schemes such as 529s to encourage people to save for their children's education. Various states have other schemes too I believe. In the UK they have had non retirements tax reduced pep (personal equity plans) for shares and fixed interest investments and ISA (individual savings account) with annual tax free allowances.
Locked in schemes. We used to allow life insurance premiums to be tax deductible. Australia's system of self funded retirees is interesting. In a nutshell - for those who have built up a decent income from investments and assets can forget about receiving their superannuation and in return pay no income tax.
https://www.catchtherisingtide.com.a...ed-retirement/
I have a few mates who have opted for the scheme. They're very happy.
The Australians also have an interesting way of dealing with Health costs with high income earners getting a rebate for private insurance premiums and an extra levy if they don't take out private insurance, if I understand their scheme correctly.
And in the UK and Australia real estate and some other property transactions often have stamp duties. However, true, there are various caveats put on the financial investment schemes. However the incentives to invest in financial investments, half-hearted though they may be, are more attractive than what NZ has in place for either retirement or non-retirement savings. Hence the continuing overwhelming appeal in NZ to use the tax-preferred owner-occupied housing as a means of investment as well as the provision of home and shelter.
At least the NZ imputation scheme was introduced to resolve the double taxation issues from NZ dividend payments. A next step will be to eliminate the taxation on the inflation component of a fixed interest investment's return.
If you have excellent teachers but in an area of increasing poverty, increasing overcrowding and/or substandard housing and poor quality equipment, the chances are their performance will suffer. If some teachers increasingly have students who are inadequately nourished and clothed and the students continually fall ill, then some teachers have a deteriorating environment in which they try to teach
Sure. And will it differ from rich to poor areas? So you think excellence for teachers in areas becoming more deprived will be constantly changing to include expertise in social work? Whilst those in continually prosperous areas will be judged on their ability to teach? So teaching ability will not necessarily mean teaching ability depending on where you teach?
Question - are underprivileged kids going to be better off or worse off with teachers now being incentivised greatly for their performance and their rapport with students?
Perhaps, teachers in a decile 1 school might find it more difficult to earn 80k a year under this scheme, but at least the opportunity is there and where there is opportunity there will always be those who rise.
As it is now ( with 4 teachers in my family who obviously love this policy ) the only monetary reward teachers can hope for is a chance at moving into a leadership position - essentially the teachers who are performing well and are considered for a promotion can now, through this policy be rewarded without having to leave the classroom where the real work with students occurs...
The opportunity to work 60 hour weeks and earn under 60k did not sell a lot of great candidates on the idea of going into teaching, perhaps this might?
Are you expecting different things from teachers in different areas? My issue is mainly in assessing "performance" in areas and schools with changing circumstances. Will a good teacher one year, be deemed to be not so good in subsequent years because they do not have the social work skills needed to cope with increasing poverty? So would their salary be cut as result of inadequate funding of social work in the community with deteriorating living conditions?
Question - is it easier to develop rapport with healthy children from stable backgrounds, from a warm dry house and who have been well fed?
...You teach in a privileged area with healthy well fed kids, you deserve an easier way to earn more money? Shouldn't teachers in underprivileged areas be paid higher salaries anyway, as not only do they need to be skilled teachers, they need to have greater skills in social work.Quote:
Perhaps, teachers in a decile 1 school might find it more difficult to earn 80k a year under this scheme,
There are always some that shine no matter how grim the circumstances. Although the numbers who will be able to succeed become fewer and fewer as the circumstances become worse and worse.Quote:
but at least the opportunity is there and where there is opportunity there will always be those who rise....
I think you arte taking an overall elitist view. Suggestign those in "poor" areas are trouble and those in "rich" areas aren't.
Schools in poor areas turn out excellent students. Hoi polio private schools can turn out toe rags - though you wont see them in the NCEA stats as they are kept out of that part of the system.
The Ministry for Vulnerable Children should be knocking at those doors then, with a view to removing those children to a home where they will be fed, clothed, not overcrowded, get the health care they need, and be supported at school.
That would remove the burden from teachers, who are supposed to be there to teach. And from parents who are not caring properly for their children,
Remove the shackles of a Collective Agreement that protects the inept would be a step in the right direction. But seriously - principals should manage poor performing teachers. That is part of their job and the Ministry of Education should provide support if they need help to do this.
I've worked in large corporates and can tell you that plenty of managers have no idea how to deal with poor performers or any serious conflict actually. Fortunately they can often find an excuse to restructure and make poor performers redundant rather than go through the very stressful performance management process. Happens all the time.
Principals can't restructure like that.
And you won't hear it admitted, but some of those made redundant may be OK performance wise but if they have had one or two lots of stress leave they become a serious financial risk to the organisation under H&S.
" You go to school to learn how to learn " quote by Bala Manian a Silicon Valley entrepreneur.
Many successful people were not much good academically at school.
Seymour's idea of paying teachers according to ability is seriously flawed in as much as without an independent body and an accurate method of grading teachers leaving it to headmasters/mistresses or school commitees will only result in upset teachers hurt by perceived or real bias. There is a shortage of qualified teachers now (especially men) and this sort of policy would only cause doubt amongst those considering a teaching career.
westerly
I agree, some here think or wish for an eutopian world where some system somehow weeds out the poor teachers and rewards the good teachers. The whole notion is flawed, implausible and totally impractical. Typical hard right, who think reward the good, punish the bad and it'll all be right in the middle.
Notwithstanding ACT has about f'all chance of having anything to do with the next government, right or left. So Seymour has to put out controversial un-implementable nonsense just to get some oxygen during an election. Goodbye Seymour, neither the right nor the left will need or want you this time.
Get real, all teachers are paid bugger all and they're responsible for our children's education! Better just to pay the poor teachers a decent wage and recognise their value and worth to society.
No one needs a merit based values and reward system for teachers which no-one will be able to decide on the precise metrics, measures or assessments. It is a flawed concept, already proven by the inept and flawed NCEA levels measurements system, although that's for students.
Education in NZ is truely screwed at all levels except pre-school although even that's grossly under funded. ACT will just add another layer of complete and utter dysfunction, with no likelyhood that a teacher will ever be paid their true worth. Sucks, the whole thing sucks imo. Act have no answer.
Sadly no major party has an answer either, expect Labour who wish to rape the taxpayers to make "education free" again. Good grief. Losing the will to live.
Elections, they're full of rhetoric that will never make it to fruition, except to highlight the extreme lengths some politicians will go to, in order to influence the un-informed.
Bogger all (what kind of word is that anyway Gus?) Baa Baa is on the money. It doesn't matter where you live - they pay is still poor in my opinion. UOTE=fungus pudding;681960]Bogger all ? Not if you live down south where their income is probably well above average, along with police, and nurses.[/QUOTE]
Making more sense again today. Time for churches / charitable trusts to pay income tax
No need for refined kerosene GTM - try doing like Tony Mokbel and escape by sailing away as there's bound to be more than our fair share of ill wind, headwinds, tailwinds, foul air, hot air, cold water being poured, stirring the pot, storm in a teacup, finger pointing to send you well on your way to either the rising or setting sun...
Good article looking at ACTs flat tax proposal.
ACT is for ideologue's, don't let facts and reality get in the way of your beliefs.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/113...-tax-ever-work
You can have an opinion and believe whatever you like (some people still believe the world is flat, which is fine just don't talk to me about it).
A common theme of most wealthy countries around the world is strong public institutions and corruption free democratically elected government providing wealth redistribution through progressive taxes.
As an example of how ACT seeks to rectify this unfairness as FP puts it is poor old David Hisco. What did he make $3million a year?. Currently that's $980,920.00 in income tax under ACTs policy that reduces to $525,000 or a saving of $455,920 under ACT. Imagine the problems that would have been solved if he could have afforded his own chauffer and wine cellar. I can see ACT policies already solving some of the bigger issues facing the nation... so aspirational.
Sadly if Labour/Green/NZ First voters in Epsom were any smarter and gave National their electorate vote Blackcap and FP would be left without representation in Parliament. So I guess this is another reason they can be grateful the left is soo stooopid.
Why wouldn't I talk to you about it or why would you not talk to me? I am trying to convince you of my argument, and conversely you are trying to convince me of your argument. If you don't want to talk then that's fine, but then you have no way of swaying my position.
I doubt if Hisco is paying as much as you say. He just isn't that silly.
How fair is it when someone earning 50k pays around 16%: 100k pays around 24% tax, and someone on 200k pays around 28%? And don't spit out that rubbish 'cos they can afford it'. Of course they probably can, but that does not make it 'fair' any more than charging twice as much for a pair of shoelaces 'because they can afford it'. And before you attack me with claims of greed etc, take note that I am not complaining. I am merely disturbed when a 'progressive system' is called a 'fair system', which is simply a misnomer. It's the abuse of the language that flies fair up my hooter.
Don't get upset with me I didn't say it was fair. Those with more contribute more, who is to say if that's fair or not. It seems like common sense to me but I am not very bright.
Is it fair that a large chunk of your wealth came from capital gains on property investment on which you paid no tax while poor old David Hisco pays tax on every dollar he earns from the sweat off his brow that doesn't sound fair to me but what do I know. Nothing is perfect but some ideas just seem better to me than others.
Exactly. If there is a flat rate of tax at say 20% and you earn $10,000 you pay $2,000 tax. If you earn $100,000 you pay $20,000 tax. If you earn $1,000,000 you pay $200,000 tax. Those with more contribute more. Seems like common sense to me but I am not that bright.
Well on the face of it, it sounds like common sense but how about we test your intelligence with a simple maths quiz FP can try too if he likes it might help his understanding of the progressive tax system that gets up his nose so bad? Multi choice.
As we are discussing tax policy I expect a basic understanding of tax but to be fair as David Seymour points out “the current system of four different income tax rates, starting at 10.5 per cent for income up to $14,000 and reaching 33 per cent for income over $70,000, created enormous complexity.” That is right ENORMOUS complexity so if you don’t want to complete the quiz I fully understand, only the very brightest and most intelligent of people should undertake things of enormous complexity.
Information required to complete the quiz our current four rates of tax.
Up to $14,000 tax rate 10.5%
$14,000 to $48,000 tax rate 17.5%
$48,000 to $70,0000 tax rate 30%
$70,000 and over 33%
I assume Blackcap and FP are up for the challenge I also invite anyone else to participate.
Question;
1/ David Hisco earns $3,000,000 per annum this puts him on the top income tax rate of 33% how much does he pay in tax each year? (Hint I left a big clue earlier in the thread but do the maths don’t be lazy.)
A/ $990,000
B/ $1,000,000
C/ $980,920
2/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $14,000 earnings than a person earning only $14,000pa
A/ $3,150
B/ $0
3/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $48,000 earnings than a person earning only $48,000pa
A/ $7,440
B/ $0
4/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $70,000 earnings than a person earning only $70,000
A/ $2,100.00
B/ $0
5/ This last question doesn’t have a right or wrong answer so sorry to stray from straight forward right or wrong answers but feel free to answer whatever seems the most common sense answer to you. I would set up a poll if I knew how.
After ACTs fairer flat tax of 17.5% is imposed David Hisco’s weekly wage after tax will rise by $8,767.69(a week) to $47,596.15 a week after tax.
A person on the minimum wage of $36,816 will see their weekly wage after tax drop $18.85 to $584.10.
Do you think the ACT flat tax sounds more reasonable and fair than the current progressive tax system we have?
A/Yes
B/No
As guidance on this last question here is a quote from David Seymour.
"There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples."
With wisdom like this I cannot for the life of me understand how ACT can’t crack 5% of the vote. I suspect a lot of very wealthy people are wealthy because they are intelligent not greedy as popular opinion would have you believe.
Remember the opposite of "aspirational" is unambitious, lazy, apathetic, passive, unassertive.
Answers at 10am no exam papers accepted after this time.
I can't believe you wasted your time writing that all out. I know the answers as its pretty simple really. My answer to question number 5 is A/Yes.
I know all the arguments you make, but my philosophy differs from yours and as such I do not prescribe to them. I believe tax should be at a bare minimum and all social requirements met by the smaller community, those close around people. That enables the community to care for each other and provides incentives for everyone to contribute. If you are an a s s hole, you do not eat as ppl will be less inclined to give charity. By having such a system where those around you care for the less well off you have incentives for everyone to become positive contributing members of society. Currently there is no penalty for being anti social and a negative on society as you will still get your welfare check or lower tax paid earnings regardless of your harm to others.
I am not a firm believer in big government at all, I loathe bureaucracy and the huge paper pushing wastage that big govt produces. We as a country would be so much better off if you got rid of half the public service and it starts at home with council but extends to Wellington.
Hard to understand why you bother with all that trivia. The only important part of all that waffle is in the last paragraph. There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. 'It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples'.
You obviously agree with that as a policy; many do, but don't for one minute argue it is fair.
Answers
1/ C
2/ B
3/ B
4/ B
5/ There is no right or wrong answer.
No genuine attempts at answering questions 1-4 but I will assume not many people are reading this thread (only 1% of NZ has an interest in ACT).
Although I suspect we all knew Blackcap and FP’s answer to question 5 in advance.
I am concerned no real attempt was made on questions 1 to 4 but appreciate the enormous complexity of the questions.
I do whole heartedly agree with Blackcap and FP that this has been a waste of time, but I knew that before I started.
I was hoping to educate people on a common misconception about a progressive income tax rate, which is once your income is high enough and you are on 33% it is only every dollar over $70,000 that is taxed at 33% we don’t expect David Hisco to pay more than 10.5% on his first $14,000 same as everyone else as it wouldn’t be fair to expect him to pay any more than anyone else.
Class dismissed.
I did not bother answering because to me it is pretty obvious and self evident. Everybody knows that everyone pays tax at 10.5% on the first $14k etc. Well I presumed everyone did. Most people earning over 70k know that they do not pay 33% on the whole lot only the marginal amount.
Anyone with half a brain knows the tax rates are progressive. You must know some very strange people. You and I have a different understanding of the words 'fair' and 'unfair'. It can only be fair in my eyes if we all pay the same percentage on earnings, just as we pay the same percentage of tax on our groceries. Or is that 'unfair'?
FP you never answered the quiz I can only assume you were stumped by the questions or weren't aspirational enough to do the maths.
Are you turning into a troll?? We have been over how GST is a regressive tax many times and I find you very strange not being able to comprehend something so basic. But you are entitled to your beliefs even if they are not based on any sort of reality. That is why having strong ideological beliefs is so good, it saves a lot of time not having to think.
As we were talking about tax, I thought this was interesting.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opi...in-new-zealand
I gather you would consider it 'fair' for a school teacher to wander around the playground, confiscating marbles from the kid who had the biggest bag, and giving them to the kids who only had a small bag.
And no doubt you consider the kid with not many marbles should be able to buy more at a lower price than the kid who had more because he had won them, or inherited them from his big sister.
This might be a bit simplistic but if I understand you correctly the teacher is the government, the kids are the taxpayers and the marbles represent wealth and the playground society in general. Assuming kids without marbles died in the playground if they had no marbles I could probably cope with the teacher taking some marbles from the kids with a lot of marbles to make sure the kids without didn't die. What are you advocating FP let the kids without marbles die?