ACT's David Seymour - i like his style.

[Aaron]

Exactly. If there is a flat rate of tax at say 20% and you earn $10,000 you pay $2,000 tax. If you earn $100,000 you pay $20,000 tax. If you earn $1,000,000 you pay $200,000 tax. Those with more contribute more. Seems like common sense to me but I am not that bright.

Well on the face of it, it sounds like common sense but how about we test your intelligence with a simple maths quiz FP can try too if he likes it might help his understanding of the progressive tax system that gets up his nose so bad? Multi choice.
As we are discussing tax policy I expect a basic understanding of tax but to be fair as David Seymour points out “the current system of four different income tax rates, starting at 10.5 per cent for income up to $14,000 and reaching 33 per cent for income over $70,000, created enormous complexity.” That is right ENORMOUS complexity so if you don’t want to complete the quiz I fully understand, only the very brightest and most intelligent of people should undertake things of enormous complexity.

Information required to complete the quiz our current four rates of tax.
Up to $14,000 tax rate 10.5%
$14,000 to $48,000 tax rate 17.5%
$48,000 to $70,0000 tax rate 30%
$70,000 and over 33%
I assume Blackcap and FP are up for the challenge I also invite anyone else to participate.

Question;

1/ David Hisco earns $3,000,000 per annum this puts him on the top income tax rate of 33% how much does he pay in tax each year? (Hint I left a big clue earlier in the thread but do the maths don’t be lazy.)
A/ $990,000
B/ $1,000,000
C/ $980,920

2/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $14,000 earnings than a person earning only $14,000pa
A/ $3,150
B/ $0

3/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $48,000 earnings than a person earning only $48,000pa
A/ $7,440
B/ $0

4/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $70,000 earnings than a person earning only $70,000
A/ $2,100.00
B/ $0

5/ This last question doesn’t have a right or wrong answer so sorry to stray from straight forward right or wrong answers but feel free to answer whatever seems the most common sense answer to you. I would set up a poll if I knew how.
After ACTs fairer flat tax of 17.5% is imposed David Hisco’s weekly wage after tax will rise by $8,767.69(a week) to $47,596.15 a week after tax.
A person on the minimum wage of $36,816 will see their weekly wage after tax drop $18.85 to $584.10.
Do you think the ACT flat tax sounds more reasonable and fair than the current progressive tax system we have?
A/Yes
B/No

As guidance on this last question here is a quote from David Seymour.
"There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples."
With wisdom like this I cannot for the life of me understand how ACT can’t crack 5% of the vote. I suspect a lot of very wealthy people are wealthy because they are intelligent not greedy as popular opinion would have you believe.
Remember the opposite of "aspirational" is unambitious, lazy, apathetic, passive, unassertive.

Answers at 10am no exam papers accepted after this time.

[blackcap]

Well on the face of it, it sounds like common sense but how about we test your intelligence with a simple maths quiz FP can try too if he likes it might help his understanding of the progressive tax system that gets up his nose so bad? Multi choice.
As we are discussing tax policy I expect a basic understanding of tax but to be fair as David Seymour points out “the current system of four different income tax rates, starting at 10.5 per cent for income up to $14,000 and reaching 33 per cent for income over $70,000, created enormous complexity.” That is right ENORMOUS complexity so if you don’t want to complete the quiz I fully understand, only the very brightest and most intelligent of people should undertake things of enormous complexity.

Information required to complete the quiz our current four rates of tax.
Up to $14,000 tax rate 10.5%
$14,000 to $48,000 tax rate 17.5%
$48,000 to $70,0000 tax rate 30%
$70,000 and over 33%
I assume Blackcap and FP are up for the challenge I also invite anyone else to participate.

Question;

1/ David Hisco earns $3,000,000 per annum this puts him on the top income tax rate of 33% how much does he pay in tax each year? (Hint I left a big clue earlier in the thread but do the maths don’t be lazy.)
A/ $990,000
B/ $1,000,000
C/ $980,920

2/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $14,000 earnings than a person earning only $14,000pa
A/ $3,150
B/ $0

3/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $48,000 earnings than a person earning only $48,000pa
A/ $7,440
B/ $0

4/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $70,000 earnings than a person earning only $70,000
A/ $2,100.00
B/ $0

5/ This last question doesn’t have a right or wrong answer so sorry to stray from straight forward right or wrong answers but feel free to answer whatever seems the most common sense answer to you. I would set up a poll if I knew how.
After ACTs fairer flat tax of 17.5% is imposed David Hisco’s weekly wage after tax will rise by $8,767.69(a week) to $47,596.15 a week after tax.
A person on the minimum wage of $36,816 will see their weekly wage after tax drop $18.85 to $584.10.
Do you think the ACT flat tax sounds more reasonable and fair than the current progressive tax system we have?
A/Yes
B/No

As guidance on this last question here is a quote from David Seymour.
"There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples."
With wisdom like this I cannot for the life of me understand how ACT can’t crack 5% of the vote. I suspect a lot of very wealthy people are wealthy because they are intelligent not greedy as popular opinion would have you believe.
Remember the opposite of "aspirational" is unambitious, lazy, apathetic, passive, unassertive.

Answers at 10am no exam papers accepted after this time.

I can't believe you wasted your time writing that all out. I know the answers as its pretty simple really. My answer to question number 5 is A/Yes.

I know all the arguments you make, but my philosophy differs from yours and as such I do not prescribe to them. I believe tax should be at a bare minimum and all social requirements met by the smaller community, those close around people. That enables the community to care for each other and provides incentives for everyone to contribute. If you are an a s s hole, you do not eat as ppl will be less inclined to give charity. By having such a system where those around you care for the less well off you have incentives for everyone to become positive contributing members of society. Currently there is no penalty for being anti social and a negative on society as you will still get your welfare check or lower tax paid earnings regardless of your harm to others.

I am not a firm believer in big government at all, I loathe bureaucracy and the huge paper pushing wastage that big govt produces. We as a country would be so much better off if you got rid of half the public service and it starts at home with council but extends to Wellington.

[fungus pudding]

Well on the face of it, it sounds like common sense but how about we test your intelligence with a simple maths quiz FP can try too if he likes it might help his understanding of the progressive tax system that gets up his nose so bad? Multi choice.
As we are discussing tax policy I expect a basic understanding of tax but to be fair as David Seymour points out “the current system of four different income tax rates, starting at 10.5 per cent for income up to $14,000 and reaching 33 per cent for income over $70,000, created enormous complexity.” That is right ENORMOUS complexity so if you don’t want to complete the quiz I fully understand, only the very brightest and most intelligent of people should undertake things of enormous complexity.

Information required to complete the quiz our current four rates of tax.
Up to $14,000 tax rate 10.5%
$14,000 to $48,000 tax rate 17.5%
$48,000 to $70,0000 tax rate 30%
$70,000 and over 33%
I assume Blackcap and FP are up for the challenge I also invite anyone else to participate.

Question;

1/ David Hisco earns $3,000,000 per annum this puts him on the top income tax rate of 33% how much does he pay in tax each year? (Hint I left a big clue earlier in the thread but do the maths don’t be lazy.)
A/ $990,000
B/ $1,000,000
C/ $980,920

2/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $14,000 earnings than a person earning only $14,000pa
A/ $3,150
B/ $0

3/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $48,000 earnings than a person earning only $48,000pa
A/ $7,440
B/ $0

4/ How much more tax does David pay on his first $70,000 earnings than a person earning only $70,000
A/ $2,100.00
B/ $0

5/ This last question doesn’t have a right or wrong answer so sorry to stray from straight forward right or wrong answers but feel free to answer whatever seems the most common sense answer to you. I would set up a poll if I knew how.
After ACTs fairer flat tax of 17.5% is imposed David Hisco’s weekly wage after tax will rise by $8,767.69(a week) to $47,596.15 a week after tax.
A person on the minimum wage of $36,816 will see their weekly wage after tax drop $18.85 to $584.10.
Do you think the ACT flat tax sounds more reasonable and fair than the current progressive tax system we have?
A/Yes
B/No

As guidance on this last question here is a quote from David Seymour.
"There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples."
With wisdom like this I cannot for the life of me understand how ACT can’t crack 5% of the vote. I suspect a lot of very wealthy people are wealthy because they are intelligent not greedy as popular opinion would have you believe.
Remember the opposite of "aspirational" is unambitious, lazy, apathetic, passive, unassertive.

Answers at 10am no exam papers accepted after this time.

Hard to understand why you bother with all that trivia. The only important part of all that waffle is in the last paragraph. There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. 'It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples'.

You obviously agree with that as a policy; many do, but don't for one minute argue it is fair.

[Aaron]

Answers
1/ C
2/ B
3/ B
4/ B
5/ There is no right or wrong answer.

No genuine attempts at answering questions 1-4 but I will assume not many people are reading this thread (only 1% of NZ has an interest in ACT).

Although I suspect we all knew Blackcap and FP’s answer to question 5 in advance.

I am concerned no real attempt was made on questions 1 to 4 but appreciate the enormous complexity of the questions.

I do whole heartedly agree with Blackcap and FP that this has been a waste of time, but I knew that before I started.

I was hoping to educate people on a common misconception about a progressive income tax rate, which is once your income is high enough and you are on 33% it is only every dollar over $70,000 that is taxed at 33% we don’t expect David Hisco to pay more than 10.5% on his first $14,000 same as everyone else as it wouldn’t be fair to expect him to pay any more than anyone else.

Class dismissed.

[blackcap]

I was hoping to educate people on a common misconception about a progressive income tax rate, which is once your income is high enough and you are on 33% it is only every dollar over $70,000 that is taxed at 33% we don’t expect David Hisco to pay more than 10.5% on his first $14,000 same as everyone else as it wouldn’t be fair to expect him to pay any more than anyone else.

Class dismissed.

I did not bother answering because to me it is pretty obvious and self evident. Everybody knows that everyone pays tax at 10.5% on the first $14k etc. Well I presumed everyone did. Most people earning over 70k know that they do not pay 33% on the whole lot only the marginal amount.

[Aaron]

I did not bother answering because to me it is pretty obvious and self evident. Everybody knows that everyone pays tax at 10.5% on the first $14k etc. Well I presumed everyone did. Most people earning over 70k know that they do not pay 33% on the whole lot only the marginal amount.

You might be surprised at the number of people who do not appreciate this fact. But once you do appreciate it, progressive taxation doesn't sound as unfair as David Seymour and FP make it out to be.

[fungus pudding]

You might be surprised at the number of people who do not appreciate this fact. But once you do appreciate it, progressive taxation doesn't sound as unfair as David Seymour and FP make it out to be.

Anyone with half a brain knows the tax rates are progressive. You must know some very strange people. You and I have a different understanding of the words 'fair' and 'unfair'. It can only be fair in my eyes if we all pay the same percentage on earnings, just as we pay the same percentage of tax on our groceries. Or is that 'unfair'?

[Aaron]

Anyone with half a brain knows the tax rates are progressive. You must know some very strange people. You and I have a different understanding of the words 'fair' and 'unfair'. It can only be fair in my eyes if we all pay the same percentage on earnings, just as we pay the same percentage of tax on our groceries. Or is that 'unfair'?

FP you never answered the quiz I can only assume you were stumped by the questions or weren't aspirational enough to do the maths.

Are you turning into a troll?? We have been over how GST is a regressive tax many times and I find you very strange not being able to comprehend something so basic. But you are entitled to your beliefs even if they are not based on any sort of reality. That is why having strong ideological beliefs is so good, it saves a lot of time not having to think.

[westerly]

Hard to understand why you bother with all that trivia. The only important part of all that waffle is in the last paragraph. There is no fairness in 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax. 'It is wrong that if a person's income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000 their tax bill triples'.

You obviously agree with that as a policy; many do, but don't for one minute argue it is fair.

Get over it . Life is'nt fair
The 5% possibly consume more resources, like drive a BMW as against a Susuki Swift or live on a lifestyle block rather than the back seat of a car.

westerly

[fungus pudding]

Get over it . Life is'nt fair
The 5% possibly consume more resources, like drive a BMW as against a Susuki Swift or live on a lifestyle block rather than the back seat of a car.

westerly

Nothing to get over. Life indeed isn't fair, which doesn't worry me. You shouldn't waste your time worrying about it either. Better to spend your time going for what you want.