Today Jacinda sounded a bit down on her chances to form a Government unless the Left gained some seats from the special votes. One wonders if Winston told her on the phone that a 3 party coalition with a one vote majority was a no goer !
Today Jacinda sounded a bit down on her chances to form a Government unless the Left gained some seats from the special votes. One wonders if Winston told her on the phone that a 3 party coalition with a one vote majority was a no goer !
Act must be on the verge of getting a second MP. Imagine if they did, and greens or Labour dropped one - that would knock the wind out of Winston's sales.
Act must be on the verge of getting a second MP. Imagine if they did, and greens or Labour dropped one - that would knock the wind out of Winston's sales.
I didn't know he was selling anything, FP. But I don't like your chances of ACT getting another MP. What are they on, 2%?
I think David Seymour is wonderful. With 0.5% so far of the vote he is well positioned to spread the act message, unshackled for any government agreements
I think David Seymour is wonderful. With 0.5% so far of the vote he is well positioned to spread the act message, unshackled for any government agreements
And he will be sure to do exactly that - not silly that boy.
I agree that's is an excellent measure and perfectly suits the discussion on wealth.
It is however one that is unused by researchers and statistician's when it comes to discussing inequality - which is what Jacinda was referring to. Heres one that deals specifically with Inequality and hardship. http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and...ehold-incomes/
So just in terms of income, not wealth, the top 1% in NZ were looking pretty through the previous National term, but were dropping back during Labour's term as they started to improve the inequality stats. Nothing much has changed since. However, longer term, incomes have stratified since the 1980s, all around the world.
But graphs like this are unrealistic. Most landowners wouldn't show up on such incomes, but when they sell up, their capital gain wealth suddenly pops out and has to be tucked away again somehow, for example.
So just in terms of income, not wealth, the top 1% in NZ were looking pretty through the previous National term, but were dropping back during Labour's term as they started to improve the inequality stats. Nothing much has changed since. However, longer term, incomes have stratified since the 1980s, all around the world.
Yes. We must make it far more difficult for the enterprising to work hard, be innovative, employ people, and worst of all attain assetts. Imagine what we could achieve by banning wealth! Let's start right away.
Last edited by fungus pudding; 03-10-2017 at 10:57 PM.
Yes. We must make it far more difficult for the enterprising to work hard, be innovative, employ people, and worst of all attain assetts. Imagine what we could achieve by banning wealth! Let's start right away.
That's not the point I'm making FP. Or what I think. But if there is unproductive wealth sitting around, being used mostly for capital gain, and if that is a big part of the wealth in NZ, it makes sense to be even-handed about tax on eventual income at sale. I believe that doing this would encourage a bigger proportion of capital to be used on more productive assets that employ more people, export goods, etc.
And it would be far fairer to those who simply work for someone else, and pay taxes and levies at every step of the way, weekly. At the same time, tax haven access could be abolished in NZ. Do they have any use other than for someone to gain a tax advantage over other New Zealanders? Just try asking as a small business owner for access to a tax haven, for research purposes. You'll be referred to a "tax accountant". That's a misnomer. It's where you go to get off paying fair taxes, and avoiding making your fair contribution.
You'll be referred to a "tax accountant". That's a misnomer. It's where you go to get off paying fair taxes, and avoiding making your fair contribution.
That statement is a blatant lie. I have been a "tax accountant" in the past and always complied with the law. Its not where people go to avoid paying taxes. Its where people go so they know how much tax they must pay. Most of my clients payed more than their fair share of tax. In fact most payed more than they received in govt benefits. (unlike vast chucks of the populace, a lot who seem to moan as well that its not enough)
That statement is a blatant lie. I have been a "tax accountant" in the past and always complied with the law. Its not where people go to avoid paying taxes. Its where people go so they know how much tax they must pay. Most of my clients payed more than their fair share of tax. In fact most payed more than they received in govt benefits. (unlike vast chucks of the populace, a lot who seem to moan as well that its not enough)
Cripes, I didn't mean to offend anyone Blackcap. Least of all a tax accountant! Hope you didn't write reports for clients. I guess you'd know all about things like tax losses held in company shells, and where a high flyer might go to find a tax haven. I hear it's all the rage these days.
I asked a tax advising firm where to access a tax haven, the written reply was to go to a tax accountant. That's all I know about the situation personally. Thanks to John Key, we all know they're in nondescript offices in major cities, there for those who are informed and ruthless enough to ask about them.
Don't bring up that old National chestnut about low income earners getting more in benefits than the tax they pay. You mean income tax there, don't you? Please remember to add back in GST and levies on fuel, power etc. The hoi polloi, due to their sheer size, still pay a substantial amount into the crown coffers.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by iceman
Bookmarks