When you say tax, do you mean just the govt levied taxes on income, or do you mean to include Rates, GST, levies on fuel, cigs, alcohol, etc, which are all part of the picture? Lower income people must be paying a big portion of their weekly wage on levies/taxes in one form or another. Once you get above a certain point and overheads are covered, the tax rates we are left with now, are fairly affordable.
Quite obviously I mean income tax. Of course they pay a higher percentage of their income for rates, fuel, fish, booze, weetbix etc. I thought there would be little point in stating the bleeding obvious.
Quite obviously I mean income tax. Of course they pay a higher percentage of their income for rates, fuel, fish, booze, weetbix etc. I thought there would be little point in stating the bleeding obvious.
FP, I made it quite clear I was talking about local body and central government taxes and levies, not the full value of goods and services. But I'm sure it's not even true that
75% (of taxpayers) pay less than $2500 (of income taxes per year).
. But I would be interested in knowing the source of that statement.
FP, I made it quite clear I was talking about local body and central government taxes and levies, not the full value of goods and services. But I'm sure it's not even true that
. But I would be interested in knowing the source of that statement.
I'm not sure either. Quoted by Larry Williamson newstalk zb. Could be after wff
Thanks for that FP, so now we have about 1/3 of the answer. Because the government receives a lot more than just income tax, to make up the 60 billion or so of total annual tax receipts. So whoever does that right-wingish blog (and they might need to check their spelling) has conveniently forgotten about GST and other indirect taxes, which are far more heavily paid for by the masses. And guess where National has made the increases, the opposite result to the top tax rate of course. That was a great leading question in Parliament.
Income tax does not equal total tax paid by a household. That was my point. The GST tax on power, fuel, all goods and services, must be a fair chunk out of the income of the lower paid households. Where are those figures?
Thanks for that FP, so now we have about 1/3 of the answer. Because the government receives a lot more than just income tax, to make up the 60 billion or so of total annual tax receipts. So whoever does that right-wingish blog (and they might need to check their spelling) has conveniently forgotten about GST and other indirect taxes, which are far more heavily paid for by the masses. And guess where National has made the increases, the opposite result to the top tax rate of course. That was a great leading question in Parliament.
Income tax does not equal total tax paid by a household. That was my point. The GST tax on power, fuel, all goods and services, must be a fair chunk out of the income of the lower paid households. Where are those figures?
Well - we all know high earners also pay more in GST individually, but if you want the exact breakdown email Bill English.
Well - we all know high earners also pay more in GST individually, but if you want the exact breakdown email Bill English.
I had another look at the chart FP, here's another set of figures that are accurate.
48.7% of households pay at least $4362 of (net?) income tax, as they have a combined income of $60,000 or more.
The topmost tier containing 9.7% of households on $150,000 or more income pay 70.7% of the net income tax, because they are counterbalancing the lowest income families in part, from the way the table is deliberately set up.
But their average income tax, possibly for two earners, is only $48,487 per year, so often just $24,000 per person. This elite group received $333 million of gross transfers from the govt, over $2,000 per household, that helped balance the tax. Let's say the average household income was $200,000 for that group, and that would surely be on the low side. The income tax percentage overall (net) is 24% or less. Not 28%-33%.
Yes, higher earners might buy more goods and services, and so pay more GST. But you posed all this in percentages, FP. I'd bet my bottom dollar that on average, the lower-paid pay a higher percentage of GST tax relative to their income, which also brings up their contribution to the state coffers.
Which brings me to another question. What use is it studying an income tax chart that has already factored in some welfare payments etc? Because the total income tax received in that chart started at 22 billion, had dropped to a net 11 billion, and yet the govt receives 51 billion odd in taxes in total, every year.
Treasury has a more balanced take on taxes and income. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/governme...d/jun11/06.htm
Here is a basic chart showing that of the $51 billion in taxes obtained in the last financial year, 45% was income tax at $23Bill, 27% was GST at $14Bill (this will rise), and $7Bill or 14% from corporate tax and the same from "other". Government has other non-tax income of about $5Bill plus $24Bill from SOES etc (soon to drop), but the tax take is down by about $5Bill from when Labour was in office, and costs have increased. SOE/elimination income has risen, but this is a result of the earthquakes, and is more than balanced out.
Several interesting points: No doubt all households will be paying GST, there's no escaping it. Corporate tax paid seems very low by comparison, companies must on average be doing poorly. GST is becoming an important tax, already no. 2 on the list. It was only about 19% of the tax take in 2005-2006.
The tax on fuel is another universal one: 48.5c a litre of petrol is excise taxes, and GST of 15% applies on top of that, making it about 36% of the end-user price being taxes. All households effectively carry those tax costs too.
I made a quick calculation: if about 43% of the 1.656 million households in NZ have an average income of $30,000 p.a., (even if they pay no net income tax, FP) and spend 75% of it on GST-bearing goods and services, that amounts to $5.6 billion in GST alone. This is 11% of the total tax take.
Those of us with companies and businesses at least get to remove GST from the books, it is always carried by any domestic end-users in effect.
We all know farmers as a bloc are BIG National voters, so I'm putting this post here.
One of the more interesting factors in the elections this year was the intent of Labour and the Greens to eventually charge farmers more for irrigation water in particular. This would be a significant cost for some bigger dairy farmers, in the region of an extra $200,000 per year. Naturally enough they were not too impressed with this, from their point of view they are only "borrowing water". But hang on, aren't Fonterra using over 500 tankers to transport vast quantities of (mostly water) around the country every milking day?
The press releases from Federated Farmers need to be kept an eye on. The new Federated Farmers President, Bruce Wills, had this to say in a press release of 11th December 2011 (he waited until after the election results were in).
Newton's Third Law of physics and water policy
Released 11 Dec 2011 Bruce Wills is the President of Federated Farmers and a version of which, was published in the Sunday Star Times
Who in their right mind could possibly disagree with "jobs, rivers, and kids"? This week the Conservation Authority went further. It said a "set of selected rivers should be genuinely protected in perpetuity in their natural state..." One of New Zealand's best journalists, Jon Morgan, rightly noted that the Conservation Authority can be pretty free in giving uncosted advice. As Newton's Third Law of physics seems to apply to policy, it means that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Morgan noted that "a severe reduction in cow numbers of the kind needed to protect these special rivers would hurt us all. How much hurt can we live with? I'm not sure. I need to see the data."
I genuinely want my daughters to lay down their roots here but they'll first need a prosperous country rich in the environment and the economy. If we collectively agree New Zealand isn't one large national park then it means we agree there is need for balance; treating the environment, the economic, the social and the cultural as equals. This got me thinking what it would take to return the Waikato River to a ‘natural state'. It would start with removing all nine hydro-electric power stations. Given these power stations generate 13 percent of all electricity it would be a tall and expensive ask and it gets harder the deeper you go. A ‘natural state' means removing introduced trout, carp and aquatic birds like mallard ducks. It would also mean turning agriculture from our biggest exporter into a cottage industry. We're talking about the loss of tens of billions of dollars so how could we afford to upgrade deficient urban sewerage schemes? If we're going down this road then all these costs need to be on the table as Jon Morgan rightly observed. History and global experience tells us that the worse an economy becomes, the more the natural environment suffers.
For the record, I don't define ‘clean water' as the ability to drink straight out of the Tamaki River, but the ability to see your hands in water without falling ill afterwards. When you look at all of your daily uses of water, where it goes and what happens to it, what does clean water mean to you?
The Conservation Authority's report is what happens when you exclusively focus on the environment. Balance is a word government and politicians need to understand because water is crucial to business and the jobs businesses generate. Small business is big when it comes to employment with just under one in three Kiwis working for companies with 19 or fewer employees. Small businesses and I include farms in this, are also disproportionately hit by government policy. That's why a spending cap on government spending is like sending Wellington to a fiscal gym. A leaner and healthier government with balanced regulation makes it easier for small businesses to grow and create jobs. Few farmers would disagree with what Ngai Tahu said on moving into dairy farming because we all share "ownership positions and leadership positions". Farmers are small business people who see their farms as intergenerational assets. At a recent meeting our words to this effect saw one government official say we sounded like Mâori. I take that as a compliment because our kids need a rich environment with economic hope, vision and opportunity. It's why we need to invest a lot more in their health, education and well being. Doing it all takes money. For more information: Bruce Wills, Federated Farmers President, 06 834 9704, 027 234 1516
Have a think about this during the holiday season (OK, dairy farmers don't get much of one) when you're using our waterways. Don't be perturbed if you can't drink or swim in the water. If you can touch it without falling ill, it's fine
Jon Morgan seems to have been captured by the farming establishment, he used to be be a bit more open-minded. He needs watching too.
Don't really want to get into the argument uu, having not followed this thread closely, but you're question got me thinking.
Fifty years ago, as a kid, I swum in the Waikato River opposite the then operational Meremere Power Station. It didn't kill me, but my Mother would have had she known! The water was always clear then. Twenty years ago I paddled that river from Cambridge to Tuakau over 3 days, with a group of Venturer Scouts. We had to lay down some pretty strict rules with the kids when we realised it's state, the other option being calling the trip off.
Almost every time my paddle hit the water I wanted to cry - the water was filthy, the flow pathetic. In fact there were areas we had to drag canoes over, amongst much rubbish. To see a once beautiful stretch of river reduced to this dismal state is devastating. I don't have the answers, wish I did. So much for progress.
Originally Posted by elZorro
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks