-
10-07-2013, 09:45 AM
#1551
They must have a half-and-half in there somewhere? Now wouldn't that cover all the bases.
-
10-07-2013, 09:52 AM
#1552
Originally Posted by craic
They must have a half-and-half in there somewhere? Now wouldn't that cover all the bases.
That would slant towards male - definitely time for the next two leaders to be 100% female. By the third one the tables will be even allowing for a 50/50 model; so by the 2014 election they could have a half and half leader. Well done - good suggestion.
-
10-07-2013, 12:03 PM
#1553
Originally Posted by Major von Tempsky
I'm very angry about these Shearer leadership coup rumours - Shearer is a shoo-in to lose the next election to National and therefore I would be very disappointed to see him replaced by someone more effective :-(
um, is there anyone effective in the Labour caucus.....
Have mentioned this before..
Unfortunately for National, David Shearer does not have the stamina to last until the next election...
-
10-07-2013, 08:27 PM
#1554
Member
If Labour wants a woman to be leader, they should be thinking along the lines of Yingluck Shinawatra from Thailand. Then I might even consider voting for them.
-
10-07-2013, 08:32 PM
#1555
Sounds like National has been very lucky, or very organised, to have some of the heat taken off the proposed Sky City legislation for more gaming equipment.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...rer-leadership
If it wasn't Labour MPs, who started the rumours?
It will take one rogue National MP to scuttle the infamous Sky City deal at the first reading. Where's someone with the integrity of Marilyn Waring?
-
11-07-2013, 07:45 PM
#1556
As in Australia with Gillard/Rudd....how do prove there isn't a letter circulating....
-
11-07-2013, 07:55 PM
#1557
EZ. Face it .. David Shearer is a nice man.. But the Liabour Party needs a GOOD MAN..
They have difficulty finding a MAN.. let alone a GOOD one..
-
11-07-2013, 08:32 PM
#1558
Not like National, is it Janner. Bill English tried the old mantra out on a business conference recently.
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/f...ality-gap.html
It's a shocker - 12% of taxpayers pay a lot of the income tax effectively. I guess most of those paying won't include many farmers on average, and based on the startling new car sales and winter holidays going on, they have sorted out how the tax issue from a high milk payout this season is to be dealt with.
Of course the rest of the population pay the bulk of the GST, the excise taxes, the PAYE, the rent to landlords etc, and they don't have much in the way of untaxed capital gains to defray it with.
It's all tucked away in the tax figures somewhere, if you think about it.
Last edited by elZorro; 11-07-2013 at 08:44 PM.
-
11-07-2013, 10:11 PM
#1559
Originally Posted by elZorro
It's a shocker - 12% of taxpayers pay a lot of the income tax effectively. I guess most of those paying won't include many farmers on average, and based on the startling new car sales and winter holidays going on, they have sorted out how the tax issue from a high milk payout this season is to be dealt with.
Yes this is the redistribution society we live in EZ. Money milked from the upper middle class and distributed to those lower down in a big way. 75% of NZ "taxpayers" are in fact net beneficiaries of the state with the lowest 45% receiving $4 for every $1 they contribute. Maybe those advocating even more redistribution should consider that before they open their gob next time.
With regard to Labour leadership, it is clear that Shearer is not their future Leader and only a matter of time before he is rolled. Maybe they need a strong WIT (woman in trousers) like Clark but more likely the next Leader will come from the rainbow faction. I suppose it he/she would then be a half-WIT, which of course is entirely appropriate to run that motley crew.
-
11-07-2013, 11:33 PM
#1560
Originally Posted by iceman
Yes this is the redistribution society we live in EZ. Money milked from the upper middle class and distributed to those lower down in a big way. 75% of NZ "taxpayers" are in fact net beneficiaries of the state with the lowest 45% receiving $4 for every $1 they contribute. Maybe those advocating even more redistribution should consider that before they open their gob next time.
With regard to Labour leadership, it is clear that Shearer is not their future Leader and only a matter of time before he is rolled. Maybe they need a strong WIT (woman in trousers) like Clark but more likely the next Leader will come from the rainbow faction. I suppose it he/she would then be a half-WIT, which of course is entirely appropriate to run that motley crew.
Very good banter there Iceman, but I think you misread my sarcastic tone at the start.
There might be some high earners who are a bit stuck having to pay some income tax, the ones who are either straight up the line, are employed, or who have not used tax accountants. You and I both know that income tax is only a portion of total taxes and income received by the govt, and that a lot of other effective tax is paid for by anyone who buys goods and services, fuel, tobacco, power, gas, etc. This is everybody, including those on benefits. I've done the numbers further up in this thread. National likes to try and fool the public with this data every few months.
If there were no inequities, farmers as a group (for example) would be paying a higher share of the income taxes. They pay hardly any while farming, as the interest on their loans, some of which covers housing and vehicles, generally matches the operational profits. The capital gain on the land is tax free at the end of the cycle.
So yes, farmers might be contributors to a major home-grown export base, but a lot of their discretionary annual spending is on foreign goods like tractors, (perhaps PKE), cars, some being large capital items that can smooth out tax issues. I contend that the National policy of no capital gain taxes simply allows this process to continue. If all businesses and individuals were instead encouraged to focus more on operational profits each year as a way of building wealth, we would see a better GDP per capita growth, and that has eluded us in the last generation or so. Business growth would also employ more people, so the tax base would be increased, making it easier for all.
Labour's policies are aimed at this approach, and I think they would work.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...-labour-market
Last edited by elZorro; 12-07-2013 at 07:44 AM.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks