sharetrader
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 166
  1. #81
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Aaron; 20-06-2019 at 03:16 PM.

  2. #82
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    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.

  3. #83
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    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.
    Last edited by fungus pudding; 20-06-2019 at 05:21 PM.

  4. #84
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    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.

  5. #85
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Aaron; 20-06-2019 at 06:39 PM.

  6. #86
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    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.

  7. #87
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    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 ďthe 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.Ē That is right ENORMOUS complexity so if you donít 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 donít 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 doesnít 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 Hiscoís 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 canít 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.

  8. #88
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    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.
    Last edited by blackcap; 21-06-2019 at 08:35 AM.

  9. #89
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    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.

  10. #90
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Aaron; 21-06-2019 at 11:02 AM.

  11. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    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.
    Get over it . Life is'nt fair
    The 5% possibly consume more resources, like drive a BMW as against a Susuki Swift or live on a lifestyle block rather than the back seat of a car.

    westerly

  12. #92
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westerly View Post
    Get over it . Life is'nt fair
    The 5% possibly consume more resources, like drive a BMW as against a Susuki Swift or live on a lifestyle block rather than the back seat of a car.

    westerly
    Nothing to get over. Life indeed isn't fair, which doesn't worry me. You shouldn't waste your time worrying about it either. Better to spend your time going for what you want.
    Last edited by fungus pudding; 21-06-2019 at 12:02 PM.

  13. #93
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post

    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 donít expect David Hisco to pay more than 10.5% on his first $14,000 same as everyone else as it wouldnít 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.

  14. #94
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    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.
    You might be surprised at the number of people who do not appreciate this fact. But once you do appreciate it, progressive taxation doesn't sound as unfair as David Seymour and FP make it out to be.

  15. #95
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    You might be surprised at the number of people who do not appreciate this fact. But once you do appreciate it, progressive taxation doesn't sound as unfair as David Seymour and FP make it out to be.
    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'?

  16. #96
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Aaron; 21-06-2019 at 03:13 PM.

  17. #97
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    As we were talking about tax, I thought this was interesting.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opi...in-new-zealand

  18. #98
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    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.
    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.

  19. #99
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kerikeri
    Posts
    1,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    As we were talking about tax, I thought this was interesting.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opi...in-new-zealand
    Yes, that is interesting. Doesn't seem right either. Thanks for posting.

  20. #100
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    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?

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
  •