Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
As a politician she probably thought it would held endear herself to the public, like she is struggling like her voters.
There is probably more behind the scenes like she doesn't need the car anymore and wanted some extra spending money.
I know your spending can change when your salary increases but the majority of people would be living a lot better on $190k. Getting their bills paid, upgrading their appliances or car etc.
Add in a lotto win. I think the articles quoted $1.4 million. Not picking on you just as it is $200,000 it is a sizeable amount. So I'll add it to her struggles. If most people won that amount 20 years ago where it probably would have went further they could have set themselves up quite well. It was quoted she owns a house so she likely did something like that. But the point still stands she's trying to say she is struggling like a lot of others. Her issues are more lifestyle, not the monthly bills chew up all or most of their income.
If I was a voter in her electorate I'd be thinking you are telling us you are struggling on a good income, have other perks, a large lotto win. How are you going to manage the cities budget.
NZWarriors.com
Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
New government, same issues. This was a government that criticised the previous government on things like this and crime, to which has risen also overall. The prime minister had an exchange with Benedict Collins regarding police numbers to which he again showed his prickly manner to questions he doesn’t like. Jack Tame put a plea out on q and a on Sunday saying Luxon hasn’t appeared on his show since becoming PM and gave the amount previous PM’s have appeared. This guy is coming from a business sense of slash wherever, I see defence is the latest today and in the current world climate, that seems short sighted. Survive to 25 is what many are hinging all their hopes on at the moment and to watch the news last night and hear we’re still in a recession is giving plenty apprehension
I was chatting to a company recently, one that to be fair is in a world of pain right now, and their motto is ‘survive through 25’…. June year end, so a bit misleading, but there aren’t many out there expecting declining activity to flatten out any time soon.Stuff
New government, same issues. This was a government that criticised the previous government on things like this and crime, to which has risen also overall. The prime minister had an exchange with Benedict Collins regarding police numbers to which he again showed his prickly manner to questions he doesn’t like. Jack Tame put a plea out on q and a on Sunday saying Luxon hasn’t appeared on his show since becoming PM and gave the amount previous PM’s have appeared. This guy is coming from a business sense of slash wherever, I see defence is the latest today and in the current world climate, that seems short sighted. Survive to 25 is what many are hinging all their hopes on at the moment and to watch the news last night and hear we’re still in a recession is giving plenty apprehension
NZWarriors.com
I'm aware of a couple who run a few bars in Wellington
Turnover has got so dire that they are selling their house just so they can keep the lights on & pay their staff
Turnover has got so dire that they are selling their house just so they can keep the lights on & pay their staff
Greens now will consider using the waka jumping law on Darleen Tana after her attempt to get the High Court to stop them has failed.
www.nzherald.co.nz
Greens given the all-clear to 'waka jump' Darleen Tana
The decision paves the way for Tana to be booted from Parliament.
Business cost are crazy though. Insurance, rent, power, logistics. Its mental. Then people who have only lived of public money want MORE, regulation, MORE oversight, and MORE taxes. Madness
NZWarriors.com
Hospo was dying in the 2000's. Its only kept alive by those people you've mentioned and robber baron families exploiting youth workers.
One of the main issues I have with a wealth tax is that it can, in certain circumstances, tax the same income twice.
Using the lowest of the settings from the Maori Party policy last election, a household with a net worth of over $2 million would get taxed at 2% on that wealth.
So, a theoretical household where there's a Structural Engineer who runs his own practice. He receives income from drawings from his business, a rental property and managed funds. He pays part of his salary into KiwiSaver, reducing the mortgage on the rental property and managed funds. At the start of the year, his net worth in $2.4 million so he would pay $8,000 in wealth tax for the previous year.
During the year, he pays down the mortgages increasing his equity in the properties. Even if the value of them remains the same, his net worth increases because he has less debt. He's already paid income tax on the money used to paydown that debt and now he has to pay tax again on the gain in equity even though the value of the properties hasn't risen. Tax on tax.
Because he's worked hard, the book value of his practice has expanded increasing his net worth without realising him any money until he sells the practice. Tax on nothing.
He's paid money into his KiwiSaver and managed funds, money which has already been taxed and that increases in value increasing his net worth. But, that money is taxed when he earned it as income, the proceeds of profit made in interest, bonds, dividends etc, by the KiwiSaver or managed fund are taxed and then he's taxed again because his net worth has increased.
And what happens if houses reduces in value, or the share market goes down during the year. Is the wealth tax worked out on what his greatest wealth was in the year at anyone point or on the value at the end of the financial year or on the average value throughout the year. This is why most countries don't have wealth taxes.... they are too expensive to adminsister and to "catch" those who may have, even very briefly, at one point in the year crossed over into the first, or the second, or the third wealth tax threshold due to a surge in the sharemarket or property values or cypto.
The reason people like wealth taxes over a capital gains taxes is because, unless they win Lotto, it will never affect them as they may never reach that threshold.... but each year, there's a cost to them providing proof to the IRD that they haven't crossed that threshold.
The other reason people like a wealth tax over a capital gains tax or estate duty, is the money goes to the government within 12 months. A capital gains tax is reliant on something been sold while estate duties rely on someone dying.
Using the lowest of the settings from the Maori Party policy last election, a household with a net worth of over $2 million would get taxed at 2% on that wealth.
So, a theoretical household where there's a Structural Engineer who runs his own practice. He receives income from drawings from his business, a rental property and managed funds. He pays part of his salary into KiwiSaver, reducing the mortgage on the rental property and managed funds. At the start of the year, his net worth in $2.4 million so he would pay $8,000 in wealth tax for the previous year.
During the year, he pays down the mortgages increasing his equity in the properties. Even if the value of them remains the same, his net worth increases because he has less debt. He's already paid income tax on the money used to paydown that debt and now he has to pay tax again on the gain in equity even though the value of the properties hasn't risen. Tax on tax.
Because he's worked hard, the book value of his practice has expanded increasing his net worth without realising him any money until he sells the practice. Tax on nothing.
He's paid money into his KiwiSaver and managed funds, money which has already been taxed and that increases in value increasing his net worth. But, that money is taxed when he earned it as income, the proceeds of profit made in interest, bonds, dividends etc, by the KiwiSaver or managed fund are taxed and then he's taxed again because his net worth has increased.
And what happens if houses reduces in value, or the share market goes down during the year. Is the wealth tax worked out on what his greatest wealth was in the year at anyone point or on the value at the end of the financial year or on the average value throughout the year. This is why most countries don't have wealth taxes.... they are too expensive to adminsister and to "catch" those who may have, even very briefly, at one point in the year crossed over into the first, or the second, or the third wealth tax threshold due to a surge in the sharemarket or property values or cypto.
The reason people like wealth taxes over a capital gains taxes is because, unless they win Lotto, it will never affect them as they may never reach that threshold.... but each year, there's a cost to them providing proof to the IRD that they haven't crossed that threshold.
The other reason people like a wealth tax over a capital gains tax or estate duty, is the money goes to the government within 12 months. A capital gains tax is reliant on something been sold while estate duties rely on someone dying.
Last edited:
No doubt it will be popular with the masses, and play to that desire to chop people down a few levels
It all sounds nice, taxing those guys “over there”. Until you start noticing that your tax hasn’t reduced, as was promised. And then they don’t raise the thresholds, and it just become yet another income stream for the government to count on collecting, and tinkering with
We’ve been so accustomed to more taxes that the conversation is about taxes and not reducing spending. A case in point was Parker’s PR about the wealth tax last year. It was more about rallying people towards a common enemy, inventing a new concept and relying upon people’s unfamiliarity with economic income, than it was about lowering taxes overall
NZWarriors.com
Have a read of the Maori Party 2023 tax policy and it says it's about "fairness" while raising an extra $16 billion per year in extra tax.
Even scarier with their policy was that there was going to be no tax on benefits or super.... great in principle until you realise that, for someone in receiving $40K on benefits that was being taxed now, it wasn't worth them working unless they were getting paid $55K.... otherwise the tax on their wages would put them below what they would have received tax free on a benefit.
I wonder whether they just put that stuff out there to dupe people out of their vote, knowing full well that the policy can’t actually work in reality
NZWarriors.com
Then of course, there's always the double dipping tax policies with a wealth tax combined with a vacant land tax. The wealth tax is pretty easy to understand. The vacant land tax was on land brought for development but not begun to be developed within four years. How the hell can anyone prove what the intention was of someone when they brought a piece of land? Run some cattle on it for ten years, and then decide that was uneconomic so then develop it. And heaven help you if there was a sharemilkers cottage on there unoccupied that would have attached the Māori Party's unused house tax.... time to be taxed three times for the same piece of property. Oh, and of course, land owned by Māori would be exempt.
In Flat Bush, council only allowed land to be opened up that was adjacent to other land already or about to be subdivided. That's still happening some 20 years later. How many developers would get caught waiting for approval?
And some will argue that Labour would never have agreed to these things so it doesn't matter, but in post MMP elections, anything and everything is on the table to get an agreement.... SmokeFree legislation, foreign buyers tax, Treaty Principals. Of course, some would then argue that those things happened because National were weak and Labour wouldn't allow that to happen. MMMM...... 2017, cameras on fishing boats gone due to NZF, no Light Rail to airport because of NZF, concessions to racing industry because of NZF.
But, as you say, it appeals to those who think it won't affect them.... until, each year, they have to provide proof that they haven't crossed the threshold... or should do we just rely on people being "honest" and telling the IRD when they have. Can really imagine people doing that.... NOT!!!
NZWarriors.com
Ladder your mortgage?
Q: Long-time readers, first-time writers! Like many, we are trying to work out the best way to refix our mortgage, and the six-month fixed term is about to expire in a couple of weeks at the end of the month.Our questions are: with the interest rates looking like they are going to continue to drop, would laddering the mortgage, as you have suggested with term deposits, work? We would fix one-third for six months, a third for 12 months and the balance for 18 months, and then keep refixing them for 18 months.
Would the laddering work like it does for term deposits, especially in a market where interest rates are falling? Would the fact that the principal reduces on a mortgage but increases with compounding interest for a term deposit make a difference to the results? Or should we just “play it safe” and fix the whole amount for the shortest term possible?
A: Laddering a mortgage is actually playing it safer than putting your whole loan on one term. This applies regardless of whether interest rates are moving up or down. And, by the way, the same goes for term deposits.
The point is that nobody knows how fast and far interest rates will fall or rise. In the current market, you might pay 7% on a one-year term or 6.5% on a two-year term. Two years looks better. But a year from now, the one-year rate might be well below 6%, making two one-year terms a better deal in total. On the other hand, rates might not fall much, and you’ll wish you had taken the two-year deal.
When interest rates are rising, the choice might be one year at 5% or two years at 5.5%. If, a year from now, the one-year rate is 6.5%, you’ll be sorry you didn’t go for two years. But if it’s 5.7%, you’ll be glad you stuck with one year.
What to do? Take a bet each way by splitting your loan – or, as you are proposing, take a three-way bet.
It’s true that by laddering, you remove the chance that all of your loan will look good a year from now. But you also remove the chance it will all look bad.
Psychological testing tells us that people dislike a loss more than they like a gain of equal size. So most people are willing to give up on the chance of getting the whole lot right in exchange for knowing they won’t get the whole lot wrong. It’s a type of diversification.
Another advantage: in your plan, you’ll have a third of the money maturing every six months. You never know when you might suddenly receive more money, perhaps from Lotto or a gift or inheritance, and you can use it soon to repay a lump sum without penalty. Or maybe you get a big pay rise and, when a mortgage term ends, you can increase your regular mortgage payments.
One more thing: I keep hearing of people getting lower mortgage rates by asking their bank if they can do better, and telling them of better deals available elsewhere. Be a bit pushy.
Mary Holm: How to split your mortgage when refixing
OPINION: With interest rates on the way down, what should you do?
-
Nobody is reading this thread right now.
