Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

NZWarriors.com

Remove ads
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
 
defensivebomb said:
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
Click to expand...
Hope the fbi has improved since 2018 when trump sided with Russia over their own fbi intelligence
 
defensivebomb said:
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
Click to expand...
And anyway, you can't have a spy ring called Four Eyes.
 
MaybeTop8 said:
What a shit government for ordinary working class people

www.1news.co.nz

Over half a million Kiwis accessing food banks per month - survey

The demand for donated food parcels is outstripping supply.
www.1news.co.nz www.1news.co.nz
Click to expand...
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”.

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.
 
miket12 said:
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”.

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.
Click to expand...
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:
wizard of Tauranga said:
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 🤣)
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 
miket12 said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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’
 
Noitall said:

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz www.stuff.co.nz

Some interesting views regarding the changes around petrol tax and road user charges from the public
Click to expand...
Kind of like being caught between a rock and a hard place.... at least with a petrol tax, you have to pay it when you fill up your car but, those who can least afford it in cars which aren't that fuel efficient subsidise those who can afford a more modern, fuel efficient car because those with the less efficient cars have to buy more petrol to travel the same distance.

But, you bring in road user charges and unless you're going to expect mechanics when it's WOF time (that is if the car even has a WOF), or an AA clerk when it's time to renew the Rego (if the car is registered) or the petrol station attendant (but not if you use pay at the pump) is expected to check to see if someone has purchased their RUC's, it's going to be a nightmare to enforce.

Buggered if I know what the answer is but it seems paying at the pump is a lot easier to administer even if it isn't exactly a "fair system".

Any talk about tolls is generally meant by calls of privatisation by stealth so that doesn't seem to be the answer either.

Dallas has a system where, on their freeways, at peak times, some of the lanes are tolled while others aren't.... so motorists have a choice, pay a toll and get home quicker or stay in the untolled lanes and get stuck in traffic. The money from the tolled sections is then used to pay for the next new piece of freeway to be built.
 
Last edited:
miket12 said:
Kind of like being caught between a rock and a hard place.... at least with a petrol tax, you have to pay it when you fill up your car but, those who can least afford it in cars which aren't that fuel efficient subsidise those who can afford a more modern, fuel efficient car because those with the less efficient cars have to buy more petrol to travel the same distance.

But, you bring in road user charges and unless you're going to expect mechanics when it's WOF time (that is if the car even has a WOF), or an AA clerk when it's time to renew the Rego (if the car is registered) or the petrol station attendant (but not if you use pay at the pump) is expected to check to see if someone has purchased their RUC's, it's going to be a nightmare to enforce.

Buggered if I know what the answer is but it seems paying at the pump is a lot easier to administer even if it isn't exactly a "fair system".

Any talk about tolls is generally meant by calls of privatisation by stealth so that doesn't seem to be the answer either.

Dallas has a system where, on their freeways, at peak times, some of the lanes are tolled while others aren't.... so motorists have a choice, pay a toll and get home quicker or stay in the untolled lanes and get stuck in traffic. The money from the tolled sections is then used to pay for the next new piece of freeway to be built.
Click to expand...
Guess they’ll get something out of the electric cars that they’re missing out on? Seems like some more red tape from those that pride themselves on cutting it. On the bright side it might create a job or two that might be useful at the moment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shogun
Politics 🇺🇸 Joe Biden
Replies
3
Views
3K
Shogun
Shogun
Politics 🤡 Donald Trump
233 234 235
Replies
5K
Views
275K
MaybeTop8
MaybeTop8
Bruce
Current Affairs 🗳️ Is this the twilight of democracy?
7 8 9
Replies
160
Views
29K
Worried2Death
Worried2Death
Buzz Killington
Current Affairs Fake News Stories in the NZ Herald!
Replies
3
Views
2K
wizard of Tauranga
wizard of Tauranga
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2025 XenForo Ltd.
  • Width
  • Queries
    13
  • Time
    0.4444s
  • Memory
    16.40MB
Back
Top Bottom