sharetrader
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55
  1. #11
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    3,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post

    As for how will the NZ gov't shore up more funds? My guess would be a rise in GST from 15% to say 18% or even as high as 20%. CGT has been tried last year and because of the 3 way coalition party in gov't, there was no way CGT would pass. Jacinda Ardern even specifically said, "There will be no CGT for as long I am in gov't" Yet her election platform originally said she would bring in CGT.
    It needs to be fair for everyone not just some who pay 0% now.

    For a young person they will be paying GST, PAYE, student loan repayments and rents that are very high. They gave up their jobs so others could have a bit more time. It's time to have a relook at something which is fair for everyone across age and other groups.

    I'm thinking PAYE cuts bundled in with a CGT, a tax which every country already has in place so you can't go anywhere.
    Last edited by Panda-NZ-; 17-06-2020 at 12:09 PM.

  2. #12
    Dilettante
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down & out
    Posts
    5,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jr1973 View Post
    . Like most things, what do you want from life? 183 days in a foreign jurisdication makes you a non-resident. Most countries have flexible citizenship options for the right level of investment.
    Becoming a non tax resident in NZ is a whole lot more complicated than that

  3. #13
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panda-NZ- View Post
    It needs to be fair for all parties.
    What does that actually mean? It needs to be fair? I hear that word bandied about so often, normally by those envious of others. But it is never explained to me what fair actually means in quantifiable terms.
    What do you mean, young people gave up their jobs? What bunkum. They did not give up anything so others could have more time.

  4. #14
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    What does that actually mean? It needs to be fair? I hear that word bandied about so often, normally by those envious of others. But it is never explained to me what fair actually means in quantifiable terms.
    What do you mean, young people gave up their jobs? What bunkum. They did not give up anything so others could have more time.
    Flat tax would be a step towards fairness: i.e. one percentage rate only, levied on every dollar earned. It is ridiculous that someone may have to earn more to buy a jug of beer than the person she is drinking with.

  5. #15
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Flat tax would be a step towards fairness: i.e. one percentage rate only, levied on every dollar earned. It is ridiculous that someone may have to earn more to buy a jug of beer than the person she is drinking with.
    A flat tax has always appealed to me as it is the most equitable. Another fair system would be everyone pays $10,000 in tax irrespective of earnings and post that gets to keep the rest. That way everyone pays the same. That sounds fair to me too.

  6. #16
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    A flat tax has always appealed to me as it is the most equitable. ....
    A flat tax on capital or capital gains or transactions or real estate and asset purchases? Otherwise a flat tax just on income or on income and goods and services is arbitrary and inequitable.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panda-NZ- View Post
    It needs to be fair for everyone not just some who pay 0% now.

    For a young person they will be paying GST, PAYE, student loan repayments and rents that are very high. They gave up their jobs so others could have a bit more time. It's time to have a relook at something which is fair for everyone across age and other groups.

    I'm thinking PAYE cuts bundled in with a CGT, a tax which every country already has in place so you can't go anywhere.
    Need to distinguish what category of tax we're talking about, which are basically 2 camps ; Consumption Tax and Income Tax.

    Gov'ts like to increase consumption taxes as it's less hassles, regulations, paperwork etc and most important of all, it captures the underground economy (that is undeclared cash, when it's spent, the GST gets a % of it).

    NZ's Income Tax system in it's current state is inequitably fair. We have this "Working For Families Tax Credit" but it's not helping much in getting such families into their own home. I do believe NZ needs to look what other countries have donen to address household income inequality. Note I mention 'household' because it's important that spouses should not be penalised in the same way as individuals living alone. There needs to be consideration for a person that works 40 hrs a week and having to support a spouse that has to take care of their children. The strategy, like most NZ gov't tax initiatives are blunt in that they use few hard figures to determine people's criteria for getting such benefits. This is the problem we constantly see for all occupations across the country. Why is a school teacher's salary not much more living in Auckland than in small rural places where house prices would only be fraction what a house costs in Auckland? In Canada, where you live in regional locations determines the tax take (ie. Northern Living Allowance). Want to live in the big cities? expect to pay more income tax, more insurance, more for everything. So before one can determine what is an equitable tax system, you have to look at the whole picture.

    CGT certainly needs to be addressed in NZ. While many say IRD already has a system in place for taxing those that 'frequently speculate on an asset / albeit shares or rental properties', the vast majority of them pay no tax.

    Over in America i'm a big fan of their "Earned Income Tax Credit". It may be similar to NZ's Working for Families Tax Credit but it differs in that it's more effective in reducing income inequality. What did the NZ Labour Party do to address income inequality? Well they raised minimum wage. Why doesn't the NZ gov't consider the other approach of keeping wages low but tax credit the low income earner in other ways? We know labour costs are a big issue for employment in any industry so elevating the cost would just simply deter more businesses to operate and encourages more of the behaviour where workers are 'contracted' on a B2B basis.
    If you want to increase productivity, don't tax it out of the entrepreneurs or businesses. How about start taking it from those that have the assets, such as the many many politicians that own real estate and wanting that tax free capital gain?

    As for a 'flat tax' system on income? Well that doesn't work so well if there's a high % of unproductive labour force. It's also far from being equitable as it does not address the 'haves and the have nots'. The 'have nots' are rioting in America for this simple reason, as Warren Buffet has said, a person merely being born from a wealthy family has all the advantages than the minorities that have a culture of low unproductive habits.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warre...134650421.html

    “If you go back to 1800 and 80% of the people were farmers, and you were the best farmer in Omaha and I was the worst, the difference in our value might be two to one,” he says. “You might be worth twice as much if we're out there picking corn, or whatever we might be doing or planting.

    Today? “If you're in the top 1/10 of 1% in basketball ability, or football ability, or baseball ability, you aren't worth anything,” Buffett says by way of example. “If you're in the top 100th of 1%, now you're worth millions. Sports is an easy example, because we all like to watch them. We don't want to watch a bunch of guys like you and me play basketball. So that's where the money is. But that didn't exist 200 years ago.

    “And so you get this pushing of extreme rewards to people who are very, very good at something the market demands. And people demand entertainment. They demand people apparently that arbitrage securities. There's certain specialties.”

    So what Buffet is saying, there needs to be more taxes for those on the extreme end of the income. This is not what i'm seeing in NZ. It maxes out at 33% on over $70K of income. Perhaps we need to start seeing a 60% or 70% take for those earning over $1M per year like all these executive CEOs we have in NZ? Canada has similar tax rates for those earning nearly $500K / year and certainly, those CEOs or high income folk aren't complaining about that high tax take.

  8. #18
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    3,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    Need to distinguish what category of tax we're talking about, which are basically 2 camps ; Consumption Tax and Income Tax.
    It is slightly bad for small business though (tax on every $1 of revenue). Imagine how quickly it would be cut if it was applied to all property income. Though I like the fact that it catches more overseas services now whereas that was mostly being avoided (another loophole in GST) until recently.

    The high end earn currently non-taxed income from shares/property and not so much wages so subjecting that to tax will be better. They would get to keep all of the existing gains presemuably since it can't be applied retrospectively which is highly fair even from their own perspective.
    Last edited by Panda-NZ-; 17-06-2020 at 06:01 PM.

  9. #19
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panda-NZ- View Post
    It is slightly bad for small business though (tax on every $1 of revenue). Imagine how quickly it would be cut if it was applied to all property income. Though I like the fact that it catches more overseas services now whereas that was mostly being avoided (another loophole in GST) until recently.

    The high end earn currently non-taxed income from shares/property and not so much wages so subjecting that to tax will be better. They would get to keep all existing gains presemuably since it can't be applied retrospectively which is highly equitable even from their own perspective.
    Is it GST you are talking about? GST does not affect small business at all. Small business does not pay the tax. The consumer does. All business does is act as the collection agency for the government.

  10. #20
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    3,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcap View Post
    Is it GST you are talking about? GST does not affect small business at all. Small business does not pay the tax. The consumer does. All business does is act as the collection agency for the government.
    How so? It is a revenue tax that can't be avoided (one of its virtues some have said).

    Despite some of the holes I brought up of course.
    Last edited by Panda-NZ-; 17-06-2020 at 06:04 PM.

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
  •