Sounds about right
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
Sounds about right too
Interesting watching Potaka last week and Bishop this week on q and a that they won’t accept that this has had any bearing whatsoever to the rise in homelessness seems absurd. Findings by groups say it’s contributed, seems unrealistic that it hasn’t contributed in some way
NZWarriors.com
Must be some head scratching by cooperating in setting up fbi and receiving higher tariffs for it
Last edited:
Sloppy job fellas, back to selling Bata Bullets in some god forsaken outpost.
Metro — Putin and Me
Bob Harvey searches for evidence of the Russian president's time in New Zealand
www.metromag.co.nz
Last edited:
Here come the foreign law enforcement experts, fresh from the battlefields of Ukraine. If you have an issue with an overt FBI office, wait till you find out who operates out of the State Dept in US embassies
NZWarriors.com
Five eyes comes with responsibilities. Only seems that the greens and TPM aren’t familiar with what comes with being part of the family. You’re either in or you’re out.
It’s a privilege to be a part of it. Sometimes that comes with having to suck up things that you’d rather not, but hey. In or out
It’s a privilege to be a part of it. Sometimes that comes with having to suck up things that you’d rather not, but hey. In or out
Hope the fbi has improved since 2018 when trump sided with Russia over their own fbi intelligence
NZWarriors.com
And anyway, you can't have a spy ring called Four Eyes.
And yet they also got tax cuts you said they don’t deserve…. a first year cop received the same tax cut as a billionaire…. but very few people would think our cops are over paid. Same with teachers, nurses etc. Everytime you read articles about “tax cuts” for the rich, remember, the author is also calling cops, teachers, nurses “rich”.What a shit government for ordinary working class people
Over half a million Kiwis accessing food banks per month - survey
The demand for donated food parcels is outstripping supply.www.1news.co.nz
That’s the fundamental problem with any progressive based tax system… you alter the lowest tax bracket and everyone paying tax benefits. So then you have to introduce a wealth or CGT or inheritance tax to take back the lost tax money and insure your core voters don’t think you’re giving the “rich” a tax break.
And then, you can’t introduce a tax on capital gains or wealth as a neutral tax because you won’t get better equality outcomes, more public service, more infrastructure, more public housing.
A major problem every developed country has is that there comes a point with a lot of families where they pass the tipping point where their income no longer provides just for their existence but starts to grow their wealth through investing, saving and even property ownership.
Yet, most who have crossed that threshold don’t consider themselves rich but “asset rich, money poor”. The Greens have determined that the “rich” are individuals with a net worth of over $2 mil. and families with a net worth of over $4 mil. while the māori Party have decided that individuals and families with a net worth over $2 mil should be taxed. But, it’s not a “neutral tax” because when you read their budgets, they both talk of over $20 billion per year additional tax would be brought in.
Personally, I favour an inheritance tax and gift duty. It would achieve the same results but be less complex to administer and harder to evade as the lawyer pays the tax before the funds from an estate are released. That means, more money goes from the IRD to the Treasury because less staff are required to administer the tax and investigate compliance/avoidance of the tax.
Imagine, each year, trying to workout if, even for a couple of weeks, your net worth went over $2 mil because of an increase in the share market increased your managed fund to high or a spike in property values pushed up your net worth. Accountants are going to love the additional fees they will be charging people to establish if they’ve gone over or not.
What happens when the equity in your property goes up because you’ve paid off enough of the mortgage to push you over the threshold? There’s a reason why very few countries still have wealth taxes…. because they’ve too hard to administer and too easy to evade…. and governments can raise money by taxing things like capital gains or inheritance than they can through a wealth tax.
Although, if you want to increase the public service numbers, a wealth tax would be a great way to do it through the increased IRD staff needed.
- Thread starter
- #18,532
I favour an inheritance tax!
So all my money in trusts will avoid it while the poor have no way to avoid paying
(posted in jest to highlight the flaws before everyone attacks me
)
Last edited:
NZWarriors.com
People wanting a wealth tax should consider this example. Three 40 year old guys start work on the same day for the same employer. They all join KiwiSaver at the minimum 3% employer and employee contributions. They are employed by a slimmy boss who never increases their $60,000 PA salary for the entire 25 years they work there.I favour an inheritance tax!
So all my money in trusts will avoid it while the poor have no way to avoid paying
(posted in jest to highlight the flaws before everyone attacks me
The first employee is a nervous saver and he puts his KS into a Cash Fund which earns 3% each year after tax and fees. With compounding interest, he retires with approximately $135,000 in his KS account.
The second employee is a bit more of a risk taker and puts his KS into a Balanced Fund which averages 4% each year after tax and fees. With compounding interest, he retires with approximately $153,500 in his KS account.
The third is a risk taker and he puts his KS into a Growth Fund which averages 6% each year after tax and fees. With compounding interest, he retires with approximately $208,500 in his KS account.
After tax on their $60,000, their take home pay (assuming there's no Working for Families credits or student loans) is $47,500. They decide that they would like a bit extra in the retirement years so they decide to add an additional $12,000 on top of the $43,000 PA they and their partners get in NZ Super.
All three put their money into a Cash Fund earning three percent each year. Within 13 and 1/2 years, the first guy (with his KS in a Cash Fund) has run out of his retirement savings and is now living solely on the NZ Super. The second one has been able to make his KS money last for 18 years. But the third doesn't run out of his money till he's 80 or 25 years after he's retired.... yet, the third, while earning below the median wage for most his working life will be considered rich by some... because of his choice of which fund to go into.
Another way to look at it is, three 27 year olds each brought a house in 1987 for $150,000. Every 12.5 years the houses double in value so when they retired at 65, they had paid of the mortgages and the houses were worth $1.2 mil each.
After they'd owned the house for 12.5 years, they each reviewed their financial situation. The houses had doubled in value and they'd also paid of around 1/3 of the mortgages. Each month, they now had a deposable income of $500 left after paying the mortgage and other expenses.
The first decided that he didn't want to save all the deposable income but only half of it which he put into Growth Fund which made 5% PA after tax and fees. Through the power of compounding interest, it had grown from his first $250 deposit to $150,000 when he retired by depositing $250 each month. That meant that the combined amount his house and managed fund was worth as $1.35 mil when he retired.
The second decided he'd put all his deposable income into the same sort of fund for the same return of 5%. His first $500 deposit (and subsequent deposits) had grown to $300,000 giving him a combined worth of $1.5 mil.
The last decided to use the equity he'd gotten from paying of the mortgage and the gain in the property value to buy a rent property for $300,000 and used his $500 per month to pay for the expenses not covered by the rent. In 12.5 years, the rental doubled in value to $600,000 and then doubled again to $1.2 mil. when the mortgage was paid off. Both his properties would give him a combined worth of $2.4 mil..... but he's seen as rich by the māori Party and the Greens because of where he decided to invest his money in and how much he'd use to subsidise the rent each month.
- Thread starter
- #18,534
Your examples highlight the disincentive to take risk and potentially be rewarded, to try harder, to want more, under a system that punishes reward.
Thinking about it deeper. Those that think and plan long term and struggle in the short term for a better retirement are punished under the green jealous tax. They promote short termism where we all end up poorer.
Countries end up the product of the incentives govt’s encourage… we need to avoid ‘for the poor, by the poor and making everyone poorer’
-
Nobody is reading this thread right now.
