sharetrader
Page 6 of 1001 FirstFirst ... 23456789101656106506 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 15013
  1. #76
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    6,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Major von Tempsky View Post
    It's not "the best argument National has presented" (doubt you've even read half of them anyway) but the arguments presented by OECD, IMF, Treasury, Reserve Bank, in the Australian Labour Government and expert worldwide economic advice!

    Here's something to put in your pipe from Shane Jones

    "Labour MP Shane Jones says his party has to realise that National has the numbers to push through state asset sales, and he will not criticise iwi which wish to invest in them.

    Yesterday Mr Jones said that although Labour opposed state asset sales they were now inevitable and iwi wanting to invest in them for commercial reasons should not be pilloried.

    He indicated a more pragmatic stance on the issue was ahead as Labour sought to re-build its links with business and enterprises.

    "We can continue to criticise that programme, because we are in Opposition. But ... the Labour Party needs to learn to count in terms of the election outcome.

    "The Government has the numbers to pursue its programme. I certainly won't get too precious if various iwi step up to the plate and say 'we want to be part of this action'. That's a decision they're entitled to take. They've got sovereignty over their own commercial decisions."

    The position is similar to that of the Maori Party - which is opposed to state asset sales but has said it will support any iwi which wants to buy shares."
    Unfortunately the truth of the matter might be that some tribes like Tainui are due for top-up payments from the state under their agreement, once any other major Waitangi settlements are made in 2012. Instead of cold hard cash (which we are a bit short of, not enough National and Act supporters paying their fair share of tax), National has come up with "asset sales" as a way of keeping this a bit below the radar. Iwi will be gifted some of these shares in that case, as a contra.

    Did you see Russell Norman from the Greens on TV this morning. It's to be hoped the govt will front up with 51% of any capital raising for the partially-sold companies in perpetuity. If not, they'll end up with less than 51% share, as a result of dilution...I hadn't thought of that. They are onto it, the Greens.

  2. #77
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    Unfortunately the truth of the matter might be that some tribes like Tainui are due for top-up payments from the state under their agreement, once any other major Waitangi settlements are made in 2012. Instead of cold hard cash (which we are a bit short of, not enough National and Act supporters paying their fair share of tax), National has come up with "asset sales" as a way of keeping this a bit below the radar. Iwi will be gifted some of these shares in that case, as a contra.

    Did you see Russell Norman from the Greens on TV this morning. It's to be hoped the govt will front up with 51% of any capital raising for the partially-sold companies in perpetuity. If not, they'll end up with less than 51% share, as a result of dilution...I hadn't thought of that. They are onto it, the Greens.
    Well every other bugger's thought of it. It has been well covered. (Greens are really on to it alright ! ) I have no idea why you think voters for any particular party do not pay their fair share of tax. I'll bet my bottom dollar that I pay a higher percentage of my total income than you do. This time I voted National - even though the tax changes last year increased my tax bill by about 60k with no change in income.

  3. #78
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    6,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Well every other bugger's thought of it. It has been well covered. (Greens are really on to it alright ! ) I have no idea why you think voters for any particular party do not pay their fair share of tax. I'll bet my bottom dollar that I pay a higher percentage of my total income than you do. This time I voted National - even though the tax changes last year increased my tax bill by about 60k with no change in income.
    Hi FP, I just stuck that bit in about tax to keep the thread going.. seemed to work . Your case is a bit different, but it is certainly true that most high income earners are paying less tax under National. This shows up in the tax take dropping back, I did a chart of that somewhere. It's down by about 5 billion a year I think.

    So has National said that they will not allow dilution to occur? That would be good to know.

    It is amazing that on just about any topic, two opposing sides to the argument can be shown. It's just a case of which facts you leave out, is it not?

  4. #79
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    Hi FP, I just stuck that bit in about tax to keep the thread going.. seemed to work . Your case is a bit different, but it is certainly true that most high income earners are paying less tax under National. This shows up in the tax take dropping back, I did a chart of that somewhere. It's down by about 5 billion a year I think.

    So has National said that they will not allow dilution to occur? That would be good to know.

    It is amazing that on just about any topic, two opposing sides to the argument can be shown. It's just a case of which facts you leave out, is it not?
    It's a case of fairness. The one relavent fact is that about 10% of taxpayers still pay about 85% of the tax. 75% pay less than $2500.

  5. #80
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    6,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    It's a case of fairness. The one relavent fact is that about 10% of taxpayers still pay about 85% of the tax. 75% pay less than $2500.
    Where did these figures come from FP? Here is the situation regarding PAYE, which implies it's not as rude as you suggest.

    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/53585...ndividual-paye

    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.

  6. #81
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    Where did these figures come from FP? Here is the situation regarding PAYE, which implies it's not as rude as you suggest.

    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/53585...ndividual-paye

    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.

  7. #82
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    6,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    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.

  8. #83
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    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

    This will tell you something.

    .http://www.grownzeconomy.co.nz/uploa...ew_Zealand.pdf
    Last edited by fungus pudding; 18-12-2011 at 11:56 AM.

  9. #84
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    6,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    I'm not sure either. Quoted by Larry Williamson newstalk zb. Could be after wff

    This will tell you something.

    .http://www.grownzeconomy.co.nz/uploa...ew_Zealand.pdf
    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?

  10. #85
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elZorro View Post
    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.

  11. #86
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    6,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    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.

    It's a nasty right-wing chart, that's for sure.
    Last edited by elZorro; 18-12-2011 at 09:31 PM.

  12. #87
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    6,150

    Default

    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.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by elZorro; 18-12-2011 at 09:29 PM.

  13. #88
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    6,150

    Default

    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 M‚ori. 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.
    Last edited by elZorro; 21-12-2011 at 07:28 PM.

  14. #89
    Senior Member upside_umop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    What water ways do you want to use that you feel like you can't use, Ez?

  15. #90
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    280

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by karen1; 30-12-2011 at 07:53 PM.

Tags for this Thread

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
  •