sharetrader
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 91
  1. #1
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,643

    Default

    If you don't mind Belgarion, I'll leave this thread entirely for you to make a fool out of yourself.

    Rant away.

    ( Sorry I borrowed the above from a previous thread. However I will stick to my word not like yourself.)

  2. #2
    One Fearsome Feline winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    28,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgarion View Post
    As yet no or very little comment on Green policies ... Not surprising as the Nasties want to target big bad Labour.

    The Green Party's policy of raising the top tax rate to generate close to $1 billion to tackle child poverty is not about penalising the rich but sharing the benefits of wealth more fairly, co-leader Metiria Turei says.

    Strikes me as good policy. The Greens would tax those on $140k more to pay for:

    The revenue generated would be invested in:

    A new Children's Credit that would give an extra $60 a week to families currently missing out at a cost of $400 million a year.

    A non-discriminatory Parental Tax Credit of $220 a week in the first weeks of life for the poorest children - costing $29.4 million a year.

    A $500 million-a-year investment in children's health and education to reduce the harm caused by poverty.

    Ms Turei said New Zealand children growing up in poverty were three times more likely than those who are better off to be admitted to hospital, five times more likely to die of cot death and 27 times more likely to get rheumatic fever, and die earlier.


    Seems like a good policy to me. And as someone who earns more than $140k per annum, I am quite happy to pay for it. It seems like an excellent use of my tax dollars. And there are significant savings to be had by keeping people out of hospital by catching poverty related diseases early!

    Ms Turei goes onto say, "Child poverty can be eliminated. We have the tools and techniques. It is now simply a matter of choice."

    Indeed it is a choice. What choice will you make Sept 20th? Saving tax payers money by prevention? Or wasting it by being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff when it far, far too late?

    The simple fact that the Greens have such policy is a clear indication that this very mediocre National government doesn't really care about all NZ'ers. It seems to only care about the "haves" and their greedy desire to keep what they have and let others suffer.

    Okay! Got your attention? Good!

    Please ask National how they intend to fund the huge funding shortfall by an un-changed NZ Super that pays out to the 66% of oldies who on a means tested basis have far, far, far more wealth to support themselves ... Meanwhile sacrificing children through ensuring child poverty isn't addressed. It surely must come as NO surprise to anyone that people nearing retirement and in retirement are voting predominantly for National. Selfish self interest? But who is going to pay for it? It won't be them.

    Go on - ask the National Party who is going to pay.

    And ask yourself if this is who you are if you're going to vote National.
    Yes belg, you are correct for once. you are the one to pay.

    But don't forget that the government has put one and frippence in the pound aside for my pension (that's what they told me when I was young)

    Promised it was and selfishly I insist on the promise being kept. I willsign up shortly. Payback time

    And I expect the younger generation to stop moaning and do something about making sure the country can pay for it.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    572

    Default

    It's part of a solution. Funding for the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. How about also educating people as to whether they can afford that 3,4 or more child.
    More reason to have more kids now. The state will pay.
    Also badly sold. Better of introducing a raft of policies and the total funding for it.
    They've just alienated nearly everybody over 140k by making it their problem only to fix the child poverty problem.
    So good ish idea badly done.... The greens for you.

  4. #4
    The Good Banksie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Banks Peninsula
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    And I expect the younger generation to stop moaning and do something about making sure the country can pay for it.
    Here are a set of policies for you Winner https://www.greens.org.nz/policy. Don't you think this is the younger generation trying to do something to ensure there is a way to both pay for the oldies and ensure a future for their grandchildren?I expect the younger generation are hoping the older generation will open the other eye and help them plan for a future that is beyond their 3 score and 10.

    Edit: Oh, I forgot, which party was it that has stopped contributing to the superannuation fund?
    Last edited by Banksie; 19-08-2014 at 12:53 PM.

  5. #5
    The Good Banksie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Banks Peninsula
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slimwin View Post
    It's part of a solution. Funding for the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. How about also educating people as to whether they can afford that 3,4 or more child.
    More reason to have more kids now. The state will pay.
    Also badly sold. Better of introducing a raft of policies and the total funding for it.
    They've just alienated nearly everybody over 140k by making it their problem only to fix the child poverty problem.
    So good ish idea badly done.... The greens for you.
    This is exactly the opposite to the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Eradicating child poverty is what breaks the cycle of crime, poor education and poor health.

    Who have they alienated, at worst the 3% of the population earning above $140k, and I think many in that group are socially aware and actually believe in these policies.


    From the Green's FB page:

    Attachment 6153
    Last edited by Banksie; 19-08-2014 at 12:54 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    766

    Default

    I didn't even bother reading your garbage belg. Have you lost your marbles?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    572

    Default

    They've alienated some of the most productive people. Hopefully they give a stuff about all the population as you clearly don't. Badly sold and envy politics. Jumped on with glee by the envious.

  8. #8
    The Good Banksie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Banks Peninsula
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slimwin View Post
    They've alienated some of the most productive people. Hopefully they give a stuff about all the population as you clearly don't. Badly sold and envy politics. Jumped on with glee by the envious.
    Which sectors of the population are you assuming I don't care about slimwin?

    So with my post (and belg's admission of being happy to pay more tax), I think I have given examples that some earning above $140k have not been alienated.

    Do you have examples of those who feel alienated?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Do you two people represent much of the population on over 140k? No.
    Did I disagree with the intention of the policy? No. It's just incredibly poor PR to target part of the population to pay for everybody's problem. That's why we have tax collected and expenses paid out of the pot. People can get their feel good factor that things they care about are being fixed with their money but those that don't think that's their problem, can pretend theirs goes somewhere else.

  10. #10
    The Good Banksie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Banks Peninsula
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slimwin View Post
    Do you two people represent much of the population on over 140k? No.
    Did I disagree with the intention of the policy? No. It's just incredibly poor PR to target part of the population to pay for everybody's problem. That's why we have tax collected and expenses paid out of the pot. People can get their feel good factor that things they care about are being fixed with their money but those that don't think that's their problem, can pretend theirs goes somewhere else.
    I didn't mean me and belg, I meant belg and the 3 people in the picture Phillip Mills, Chris Morrison and Eleanor Catton. (Yeah I know it's only 4 ).

    I get your point about the PR. If I was anti-Green it would really get my back up. Sorry, I guess I didn't really understand/read this sentence "Better of introducing a raft of policies and the total funding for it. ". Yup, I think I agree with what you are saying.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Yeah, banksie. If the point is to have a workable solution you need to get as many people on board as possible. Not just the converted.
    Interesting on my compass poll I came out left of center and national as my party. NZ first as second choice. As if...

  12. #12
    The Good Banksie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Banks Peninsula
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slimwin View Post
    Yeah, banksie. If the point is to have a workable solution you need to get as many people on board as possible. Not just the converted.
    Interesting on my compass poll I came out left of center and national as my party. NZ first as second choice. As if...
    It is an interesting exercise the compass poll. I bet the results surprise a lot of people. Takes all the politics of personality out of it and matches you based just on policies.

    Whether it sways the vote one way or the other, I just hope that people at least approach it with an open mind and really evaluate their motivation behind their choice.

    I got labour with green as a second choice.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Christchurch, , France.
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Raising the top income tax rate to a punitive level is such an old and failed policy of so many countries over so many decades that I'm amazed anyone is nave enough to raise it again.

    (a) a new raving Loonie Left government/coalition raises the tax rate to 40% or higher

    (b) inevitable consequence NZ's brightest and best managers, entrepreneurs, scientists etc leave in droves, mostly never to return even when the dopey tax is reversed. Also NZ gains a bad reputation (give a dog a bad name and it will never live it down) as being inimical to business and investment, investment from overseas dries up and everyone falls over each other to realize their assets and send them overseas.

    Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! How stupid can you get?

  14. #14
    Member Snapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Mt Maunganui New Zealand.
    Posts
    298

    Default

    I just did a few numbers on the Green's raising an extra $1 billion in tax revenue. I'm wondering if I have my figures right because this is what I get: (taken from http://www.treasury.govt.nz/governme...fects/personal )

    Tax take for earnings over $140,000 $9.106 billion
    7% increase $637 million
    Offset in company/other tax $99 million
    Total increase in tax take $528 million

    Anybody improve on those numbers?

  15. #15
    The Good Banksie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Banks Peninsula
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snapper View Post
    I just did a few numbers on the Green's raising an extra $1 billion in tax revenue. I'm wondering if I have my figures right because this is what I get: (taken from http://www.treasury.govt.nz/governme...fects/personal )

    Tax take for earnings over $140,000 $9.106 billion
    7% increase $637 million
    Offset in company/other tax $99 million
    Total increase in tax take $528 million

    Anybody improve on those numbers?
    Your figures look correct. I think this statement is what will make it up to the $1 billion.

    The Greens would also harmonise the trust tax rate with the top income tax rate, and introduce measures to make it harder for people to avoid paying their fair share of tax — generating close to $1 billion a year, she said [Metiria Turei].

    This item always worries me "and introduce measures to make it harder for people to avoid paying their fair share of tax", because although tax avoidance maybe quantifiable I am not sure anyone really has a handle on how collectible it is.
    Last edited by Banksie; 19-08-2014 at 04:30 PM.

  16. #16
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banksie View Post
    Your figures look correct. I think this statement is what will make it up to the $1 billion.

    The Greens would also harmonise the trust tax rate with the top income tax rate, and introduce measures to make it harder for people to avoid paying their fair share of tax — generating close to $1 billion a year, she said [Metiria Turei].

    This item always worries me "and introduce measures to make it harder for people to avoid paying their fair share of tax", because although tax avoidance maybe quantifiable I am not sure anyone really has a handle on how collectible it is.
    I have
    .

  17. #17
    The Good Banksie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Banks Peninsula
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Major von Tempsky View Post
    Raising the top income tax rate to a punitive level is such an old and failed policy of so many countries over so many decades that I'm amazed anyone is nave enough to raise it again.

    (a) a new raving Loonie Left government/coalition raises the tax rate to 40% or higher

    (b) inevitable consequence NZ's brightest and best managers, entrepreneurs, scientists etc leave in droves, mostly never to return even when the dopey tax is reversed. Also NZ gains a bad reputation (give a dog a bad name and it will never live it down) as being inimical to business and investment, investment from overseas dries up and everyone falls over each other to realize their assets and send them overseas.

    Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! How stupid can you get?
    I would love to debate this with you MVT, are you prepared to without name calling and the such?

    1) 40% is far from punitive, in fact it is pretty low compared to other OECD countries
    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=105

    2) Are a left biased coalition likely to implement 40% marginal rate? I think it will be closer to Labours proposal of 36%.

    3) Is there any proof that a higher taxes cause skilled people to move away? And where would they move to given the tax rate is worse in many OECD countries?

    4) This policy is talking about personal and trust tax. How does that affect NZ reputation as a business investment?

    Edit: OECD average marginal tax rate looks to be around 43%
    Last edited by Banksie; 19-08-2014 at 04:45 PM.

  18. #18
    The Good Banksie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Banks Peninsula
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    I have
    .
    Going to enlighten us with an answer then FP .

  19. #19
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banksie View Post
    Going to enlighten us with an answer then FP .
    Tax planning is up to the individual, so no.

  20. #20
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Grudgingly back home
    Posts
    974

    Default

    Out of curiosity, prompted by the thread title, what would constitute a "win" for the Green Party ?

    A confidence and supply arrangement with no formal coalition ?

    One MP inside Cabinet ?

    One MP in Cabinet, two Ministers outside Cabinet ?

    Adoption of some of their policies by one or more mainstream parties ?

    How would you quantify this ? (Just so I can recognize it when it happens)
    Last edited by GTM 3442; 19-08-2014 at 05:43 PM. Reason: emphasis added

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
  •