ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GTM 3442

New Zealand's doomed then.

Is there enough Jet A-1 left to get me on a plane out?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

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

---

Why would I let facts get in the way of my beliefs? I believe that at best tax is theft, and therefore the lower the tax take the better. Nothing ideologous about that at all. Just an opinion I am (still) legally allowed to hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

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

---

https://www.propublica.org/article/f...ve-they-worked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcap

Why would I let facts get in the way of my beliefs? I believe that at best tax is theft, and therefore the lower the tax take the better. Nothing ideologous about that at all. Just an opinion I am (still) legally allowed to hold.

---

Certainly progressive tax is theft, simply because of its unfairness. But a level of tax is essential for a society to function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcap

Why would I let facts get in the way of my beliefs? I believe that at best tax is theft, and therefore the lower the tax take the better. Nothing ideologous about that at all. Just an opinion I am (still) legally allowed to hold.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

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).

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcap

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.

---

Some things aren't worth discussing such as the flat earth theory. People believe it because they want to but it is not based on reality or any factual evidence so it is a waste of time discussing such things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fungus pudding

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcap

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

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.

---

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.