sharetrader
Page 34 of 63 FirstFirst ... 2430313233343536373844 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 625
  1. #331
    Member BullishBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Fabulocity Slave.
    Posts
    42

    Default

    I don't think I will retire I like the little work I do now to bother retiring, I have a profitable little business and I will probably work well into my senior years adding to the joys of a working life as I go along...

  2. #332
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Are you sure you are not telling "alternative facts". I suppose it would be possible to get a benefit will a million in the bank you would probably just have to tell your case officer some alternative facts to achieve it. If you are dishonest and lie anything is possible, you could become the president of the USA even.
    Unemployment benefit is not means tested. I know some on the dole that have million dollar plus houses and plenty of shares. Its the accommodation supplement you do not get if you have means. Ring WINZ if you do not believe me.

  3. #333
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Unemployment benefit is not means tested. I know some on the dole that have million dollar plus houses and plenty of shares. Its the accommodation supplement you do not get if you have means. Ring WINZ if you do not believe me.
    I think it is you who should ring WINZ to dob in your friends as they sound like scummy bludgers.

  4. #334
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    I am not sure Roger is this agreement with something I have said.

    If nothing else it has sparked up a debate that I think the country needs to have. It would seem that the younger generation have resigned themselves to the fact that they will have to be the ones to accept a less generous nz super. I don't think they appreciate that it is current tax dollars that is funding the scheme. Would they be so accepting if they realized their hard earned money was going to multi-millionaries on the current nz super scheme. There is no way anyone with any sense of fairness would be happy with this, yet it continues as there is no mention of means or asset testing.
    How would they apply income and asset testing? The wealthy have often settled many of their assets in well-established family trusts, of which they remain discretionary beneficiaries. To be fair, you would need to include the assets in family trusts in any means test, otherwise the people affected most by means testing would not necessarily be the very wealthy but the more moderately wealthy without family trusts.

    Likewise how would you differentiate between pensioners who have multi=million dollar homes but few financial assets versus a renter with a multi-million dollar portfolio of productive assets.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 08-03-2017 at 10:39 AM.

  5. #335
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    I think it is you who should ring WINZ to dob in your friends as they sound like scummy bludgers.
    Nothing to do with scummy bludgers (sic). Just operating withing the current legislative framework. My parents were on the benefit for a year (a long time ago) and did not have to eat their house. Used the benefit as intended, to help during tough times but have since worked and subsequently operated their own business and employed people. So the stop gap at that time was handy.
    The benefit is however "income tested" so if you have large dividend producing portfolio it may eat into your benefit. But if you have a $5 million house that you live in... then there is not problem getting a Job Seeker (new terminology) benefit.
    Last edited by blackcap; 08-03-2017 at 10:54 AM.

  6. #336
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Unemployment benefit is not means tested. I know some on the dole that have million dollar plus houses and plenty of shares. Its the accommodation supplement you do not get if you have means. Ring WINZ if you do not believe me.
    Unemployment benefit is income tested. So if you have a multi-million dollar unencumbered house and not much other income, I guess you could may still be eligible. It is the same with other benefits I think. In-built bias toward home owners as opposed to those owning financial assets and income-producing assets instead?

  7. #337
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    How would they apply income and asset testing? The wealthy have often settled many of their assets in well-established family trusts, of which they remain discretionary beneficiaries. To be fair, you would need to include the assets in family trusts in any means test, otherwise the people affected most by means testing would not necessarily be the very wealthy but the more moderately wealthy without family trusts.

    Likewise how would you differentiate between pensioners who have multi=million dollar homes but few financial assets versus a renter with a multi-million dollar portfolio of productive assets.
    How about an equity tax like the one proposed by the TOP party. Sounds like a good idea.
    While we are at it the "Aaron" party would propose doing away with the discretionery family trust as I can see no real benefit for the country by having this legal concept "trust" "I don't own the asset but I control it". What a load of legal bull****. Limited Liability Companies and Incorporated Societies can fill the function of the Trust. Matrimonial property agreements can also get round issues of outsiders marrying into the family. You could do away with a lot of unnecessary complication by doing away with Trusts in my opinion.

  8. #338
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    3,227

    Default

    Don't worry Aaron with those policies you won't get elected.

  9. #339
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    How about an equity tax like the one proposed by the TOP party. Sounds like a good idea.
    While we are at it the "Aaron" party would propose doing away with the discretionery family trust as I can see no real benefit for the country by having this legal concept "trust" "I don't own the asset but I control it". What a load of legal bull****. Limited Liability Companies and Incorporated Societies can fill the function of the Trust. Matrimonial property agreements can also get round issues of outsiders marrying into the family. You could do away with a lot of unnecessary complication by doing away with Trusts in my opinion.
    I would sign up for the Aaron Party! Traditional Trusts without retained benefit (the settlor cannot be a beneficiary and maybe not even a trustee) serve a purpose.

    As it is now, for those who can claim benefits whilst owning a considerable asset in the equity of their own homes, maybe the government could lay a charge against the property for the value of the benfits received, which could be discharged on disposal of the property.

  10. #340
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Nothing to do with scummy bludgers (sic). Just operating withing the current legislative framework. My parents were on the benefit for a year (a long time ago) and did not have to eat their house. Used the benefit as intended, to help during tough times but have since worked and subsequently operated their own business and employed people. So the stop gap at that time was handy.
    The benefit is however "income tested" so if you have large dividend producing portfolio it may eat into your benefit. But if you have a $5 million house that you live in... then there is not problem getting a Job Seeker (new terminology) benefit.
    Your parents case is probably a good example when social welfare has helped a couple down on their luck. I don't have a problem with social welfare in these situations.
    I just don't like bludgers who are too lazy to get off welfare and contribute to society instead of living off everyone else. I also don't like bludgers who use a family trust or "the rules" to receive taxpayer money they don't deserve. For example;
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...f-housing-hook
    Typical entitled boomer bludger.
    Last edited by Aaron; 08-03-2017 at 11:25 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •