sharetrader
Page 315 of 347 FirstFirst ... 215265305311312313314315316317318319325 ... LastLast
Results 3,141 to 3,150 of 3467
  1. #3141
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistaTea View Post
    Yes, but the question is still valid.

    As I say, it is a difficult situation.

    And those who take a black and white view of it on either side of the spectrum of views can become unreasonable in different ways.
    Also I recall reading your earlier views on raising GST, not a personal attack in post 3135 just my humble uneducated opinion on regressive taxes.
    Last edited by Aaron; 09-05-2024 at 10:02 AM.

  2. #3142
    Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    4,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Also I recall reading your earlier views on raising GST, not a personal attack in post 3135 just my humble uneducated opinion on regressive taxes.
    There are valid arguments for various different tax models. We should always be prepared to revisit and debate. I know other places like the UK have 20% VAT. They also have various stamp duty taxes and some form of CGT I think.

    It is worth pointing out though, taxes are always regressive. No matter which way you cut it. Even when you try to target the rich with higher taxes, in practice it is the poor who end up paying for it.

    No perfect system, we do the best we can.

  3. #3143
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistaTea View Post
    It is a challenging situation. And both Blackcap and Baa_Baa are right.

    For the most part, parents not feeding their kids is due to choices. The parents could feed them, but choose to blow their money on other unecessary bs. In that light, why should the taxpayer be expected to subsidise these 'bad parents' poor choices?

    On the other hand, these are young kids we are talking about. It is literally not their fault that their parents are sh1t. Do we not have some sort of collective responsibility to help? The thought of some of these kids at school with no food makes me want to weep. And Baa_Baa is right that it does understandably lead to more behavioural issues, which affects all of the pupils, and also then ensures the cycle is repeated for these kids.

    And then there are a smaller minority of families where there is a genuine need.

    For me, though I wish we did not live in a society where the taxpayer had to foot the bill for feeding other peoples kids... in the end, if the govt can target the areas in need and do it in a cost effective way...with reasonable choices of food available (not platters of sushi) then let's keep it going and review the results periodically.
    Are you ok footing the bill through accommodation supplements for their accommodation? Is it the sign of well-functioning country when a substantial proportion of the population, including many in employment, need taxpayer assistance to afford accommodation? Yet many begrudge school lunches provided for children, who have not even had the opportunity to stuff up their lives or country!

  4. #3144
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistaTea View Post
    It is worth pointing out though, taxes are always regressive. No matter which way you cut it. Even when you try to target the rich with higher taxes, in practice it is the poor who end up paying for it.
    Agreed GST has its positives it is easy to implement, it eventually catches the cash economy when they spend at a legitimate business, in a world concerned with climate change it taxes consumers and consumption. Also if income allows you can choose to save and invest rather than spend and avoid GST altogether.

    I don't agree with your statement above. It is well known that the wealthy contribute a very large portion of the tax take. NZs income tax is not regressive everyone pays 10.5% on the first $14k no matter how much you earn. As you earn more you pay more for each dollar of earnings as you hit the higher tax bands.

    Skim reading the paper this morning there was something about the IRD put one of Eric Watson's companies into liquidation over tax debt

  5. #3145
    Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    4,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Agreed GST has its positives it is easy to implement, it eventually catches the cash economy when they spend at a legitimate business, in a world concerned with climate change it taxes consumers and consumption. Also if income allows you can choose to save and invest rather than spend and avoid GST altogether.

    I don't agree with your statement above. It is well known that the wealthy contribute a very large portion of the tax take. NZs income tax is not regressive everyone pays 10.5% on the first $14k no matter how much you earn. As you earn more you pay more for each dollar of earnings as you hit the higher tax bands.

    Skim reading the paper this morning there was something about the IRD put one of Eric Watson's companies into liquidation over tax debt
    I think what I was going for in terms of "all taxes are regressive" comment was that you find as corporate taxes and individual taxes go up... so do the cost of things as companies and individuals want to be 'made whole again'.

    This is an oversimplification, however let's say I am a 'rich pr1ck' working at some big bank. I am currently on $1M a year and I pay an effective tax rate of 25%.

    The govt wants to tax 'rich pricks' like me, so they add a new tax band with a high percentage. Let's say that they really ratchet up the tax in this new band so that now my effective tax rate is 35%.

    So I have gone from having a $250K tax bill to a $350K tax bill.

    Well, I am not happy about that and will want to be made whole again or else I will take my valuable skills elsewhere. So, over time, you see the company needing to bump up my pay and benefits more than they would have otherwise. And that cost will in one shape or another be passed on to the consumer... the poorest of which feel those increased costs the most.

    Same thing for Company tax.

    Some of the new tax gets absorbed by the company/individual... but I think a lot of it is ultimately paid for by the 'poor'.

  6. #3146
    Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    4,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    Are you ok footing the bill through accommodation supplements for their accommodation? Is it the sign of well-functioning country when a substantial proportion of the population, including many in employment, need taxpayer assistance to afford accommodation? Yet many begrudge school lunches provided for children, who have not even had the opportunity to stuff up their lives or country!
    I think I have done a fairly decent job of treading the middle ground on this. Not sure I am really disagreeing with anyone on the school lunch issue, though I point out it is a difficult issue and there are some valid points on both sides.

    With regards to WFF credits. Well, that amounts to a subsidy for employers. I wish we did not have this scheme at all.

    And though there is an argument to scrap it because employers should pay a living wage, I accept the reality of the situation - some bad employers won't, and some actually can't. So we have the WFF scheme so that taxpayers effectively pay some wages.

    It is not ideal, but life goes on and the sky has not fallen.

    The same will ultimately be true for school lunches. Life will go on.

    And I expect that if the changes Seymour has made are successful and the scheme is sustainable it will be in place for good, and possibly expand to more schools.

    Not even this conservative government... despite all of ACT's bluster over the issue leading up to the election... no government wants to be the one to snatch away lunches from hungry kids. And so, Seymour had to change his views and make it work.

    Overall, I feel better knowing these kids have some food, even though I think it is a shame it has had to come to taxpayers funding it.
    Last edited by mistaTea; 09-05-2024 at 02:42 PM.

  7. #3147
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistaTea View Post
    The govt wants to tax 'rich pricks' like me, so they add a new tax band with a high percentage. Let's say that they really ratchet up the tax in this new band so that now my effective tax rate is 35%.

    So I have gone from having a $250K tax bill to a $350K tax bill.

    Well, I am not happy about that and will want to be made whole again or else I will take my valuable skills elsewhere. So, over time, you see the company needing to bump up my pay and benefits more than they would have otherwise. And that cost will in one shape or another be passed on to the consumer... the poorest of which feel those increased costs the most.

    Same thing for Company tax.

    Some of the new tax gets absorbed by the company/individual... but I think a lot of it is ultimately paid for by the 'poor'.
    So looking at it another way, if you reduce taxes on wealthy people they will want to move here with their capital and life will get easier for poor people?

    Are you David Seymour?

    Is another form of this argument, remove interest deductibility for landlords and the tax increase will go onto rents, reintroduce interest deductibility and rents will be reduced (yeah right get me a tuis)?

    Every time there is talk of tax the THREAT of capital flight comes up or the perennial "the really rich don't pay tax so why bother" argument, or in your case the "ultimately the poor will end up paying in some way or other so why bother".

    To me it is a strong argument to try and reduce the concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands so that they cannot hold an entire nation to ransom every time they don't like something being proposed by the democratically elected govt.

    I have listened to Arthur Laffer of Laffer curve fame. Perhaps it is just the level we need to decide on.

  8. #3148
    Guru
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    So looking at it another way, if you reduce taxes on wealthy people they will want to move here with their capital and life will get easier for poor people?

    Are you David Seymour?

    Is another form of this argument, remove interest deductibility for landlords and the tax increase will go onto rents, reintroduce interest deductibility and rents will be reduced (yeah right get me a tuis)?

    Every time there is talk of tax the THREAT of capital flight comes up or the perennial "the really rich don't pay tax so why bother" argument, or in your case the "ultimately the poor will end up paying in some way or other so why bother".

    To me it is a strong argument to try and reduce the concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands so that they cannot hold an entire nation to ransom every time they don't like something being proposed by the democratically elected govt.

    I have listened to Arthur Laffer of Laffer curve fame. Perhaps it is just the level we need to decide on.
    For me you're ignoring the important part of the equation, as have multiple governments. Productivity. Grow the pie so the tax take grows and over time, tax rates cut. Very few governments spend my tax well. I certainly don't want to see government expenditure increasing as a proportion of GDP. I want it shrinking. That doesn't mean the $ spend needs to shrink. Grow the pie!

  9. #3149
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    3,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistaTea View Post

    Well, I am not happy about that and will want to be made whole again or else I will take my valuable skills elsewhere. So, over time, you see the company needing to bump up my pay and benefits more than they would have otherwise. And that cost will in one shape or another be passed on to the consumer... the poorest of which feel those increased costs the most.
    Then your competitors will take your work on.

    Some actually won't pass on costs.. and that's where your argument collapses. They will pressure "entitled" incumbents to reduce prices or lose market share.
    Last edited by Panda-NZ-; 09-05-2024 at 02:48 PM.

  10. #3150
    Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    4,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    So looking at it another way, if you reduce taxes on wealthy people they will want to move here with their capital and life will get easier for poor people?

    Are you David Seymour?

    Is another form of this argument, remove interest deductibility for landlords and the tax increase will go onto rents, reintroduce interest deductibility and rents will be reduced (yeah right get me a tuis)?

    Every time there is talk of tax the THREAT of capital flight comes up or the perennial "the really rich don't pay tax so why bother" argument, or in your case the "ultimately the poor will end up paying in some way or other so why bother".

    To me it is a strong argument to try and reduce the concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands so that they cannot hold an entire nation to ransom every time they don't like something being proposed by the democratically elected govt.

    I have listened to Arthur Laffer of Laffer curve fame. Perhaps it is just the level we need to decide on.
    I don't think what you have said makes my comment about 'the poor' ultimately footing the bill when taxes go up untrue.

    I do agree with a CGT in principle, but it is such a hot button for many in this country that the prospect of getting anything over the line any time soon (by the time they work out the million exemptions needed to keep everyone happy from owner-occupiers to Maori...)

    And it is true that when you introduce a new tax (either by inventing a new tax, or removing something like interest deductibility)... though it tends to be inflationary when introduced, it is not necessarily deflationary if reversed later. It is not efficient that way. If a landlord has put the rent up $30/week because he can't deduct interest, it is highly unlikely he will reduce the rent by $30/week all these years later.

    And who gets hit with that double whammy? The poor.

    And to be clear, I am not saying I am against increasing/changing taxes. Just pointing out that we need to be thoughtful when changing things, because any new taxes may not quite end up hitting the intended targer.

    And I would be happy to pay higher taxes if my government is proven to use that money wisely and develop world class infrastructure, healthcare, education, law and order etc etc. Scandinavians pay high taxes and seem pretty happy. I have been to Copenhagen, and it is just stunning. I was even transported around the place with a driverless train that was on time, every time.

    Where we get annoyed is when taxes go up, and there is little to show for it.

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
  •