Capital Gains Tax

[fungus pudding]

....and the laws of the land. Those laws include taxes so I guess what is fair in NZ is whatever the Queen-in-parliament resolves as law?

Just because something is law does not make it fair.

[Bjauck]

Just because something is law does not make it fair.

So a willing seller of stolen goods who found a willing buyer should be entitled to keep his “income”? Perhaps “some” laws are fair?

[fungus pudding]

So a willing seller of stolen goods who found a willing buyer should be entitled to keep his “income”? Perhaps “some” laws are fair?

Of course some laws are fair. However your illogical statement 'I guess what is fair in NZ is whatever the Queen-in-parliament resolves as law' is not necessarily the case.

[Bjauck]

Of course some laws are fair. However your illogical statement 'I guess what is fair in NZ is whatever the Queen-in-parliament resolves as law' is not necessarily the case.

So every individual can have their own interpretation of what is fair?

[zacman]

So every individual can have their own interpretation of what is fair?

But of course. We are all allowed an opinion. However, irrespective on whether or not I think a law is fair, I must still adhere to it. I may think that it is unfair that large parts of Central Auckland have a speed limit of 30km/hr, but tough, I must follow the law.

zacman

[Bjauck]

But of course. We are all allowed an opinion. However, irrespective on whether or not I think a law is fair, I must still adhere to it. I may think that it is unfair that large parts of Central Auckland have a speed limit of 30km/hr, but tough, I must follow the law.

zacman

So going back to Artemis's discussion point - what "your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for" depends on what you feel is a fair income, taking into account what you think are fair laws, fair share of local and national infrastructure, expenses, security, and fair health, social and environmental responsibilities.

A democratic society probably has a legal framework that approximately hits the "mid-point" of the spread of opinions on what is fair.

[Baa_Baa]

So going back to Artemis's discussion point - what "your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for" depends on what you feel is a fair income, taking into account what you think are fair laws, fair share of local and national infrastructure, expenses, security, and fair health, social and environmental responsibilities.

A democratic society probably has a legal framework that approximately hits the "mid-point" of the spread of opinions on what is fair.

You think it’s unfair if one earns an high salary and fair if they don’t, so the ones who do earn high wages should support the ones who don’t? And you address this imbalance through tax.

Is that a summary of what you think?

[moka]

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?" Thomas Sowell.

Comments?

It is the wrong question, or it has the wrong or too narrow a focus. Social justice includes much more than is what your fair share of what someone else has worked for. Implicit in that question is that others are not entitled to any or much of what someone else has worked for. The question is also about an individual and we are all part of society whether we are in paid work or not, with obligations and responsibilities to each other. The question is about capitalism and ignores the social aspects.

The questions we ask need to include words like social justice, social welfare, social wealth, social labour, social inequality, social media, social movements, social discontent, social security, social services, social value, society, socialism. Yes, even that much maligned and discredited word socialism. And not in the sense of either socialism or capitalism, but an acknowledgment that we have a system or society that includes the characteristics of both socialism and capitalism.

[nztx]

You may consider Labours' proposed marginal tax of 39% above 180k is not excessive. I do think it is, and it will certainly require a bit of 'restructuring'. Think back to the shenanigans when Muldoon struck top margin at 66% (pre GST)

I remember the final part of that era well .. Excess Retention Tax, all manner of weird & wonderful Loss making Partnerships

Now we have Company Imputation Taxes passing through Company Tax credits to stakeholders

[nztx]

Why do we need further Wealth Transferring Taxes anyway ?

Think everyone's Super & Kiwisaver funds may well also be caught by mutations of this, in the same way as failed CGT hoped
to capture it's target & kneecap everyone from all walks in process

What of initiatives to simplify Tax processes ?

Have these been thrown out with the trash due Politician's excessive spending / wasteful initiatives - in their soul digging to find a convenient target audience to inflict to try to fill the coffers for the wasted billions under their terms ?

What will this potentially do to the country's productivity / retirement planning / people's savings investing habits ?

It is no secret that there is a small bunch of high / middle earners shelling out a sizeable portion of "Net Taxes" at one end
and a vast raft at the lower end, all in the "Net Tax Refund / receiving Tax Credits spectrum throwing in top ups, W4F etc

Seeing this sort of collect from one & seeing where it gets disbursed & the vast extent of 'subsidy' to another sector never ceases to amaze year in year out, with ever increasing levels for the net tax refund / credit group

The drag on the economy at lower end of the spectrum increases every time gleeful politicians pursuing their self serving
goals elect to ramp up W4F etc etc

Should the Lower Spectrum on the receiving end not be more productive to justify the vast pool of 'Net Tax Refunds/Credits' they pocket each year ?