Planet Rugby Forum

guy smiley wrote:

booji boy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Yes, exactly... with an inbuilt cost factor for them to ‘cover the cost of processing’

The concept seems fair enough. NZ GST is 15% on everything so fairly simple to calculate. Very few exemptions (unlike other countries where certain goods are exempted). I wonder how the financial institutions would feel about it? The banks currently deduct RWT on interest.

Oh they’d kick up a massive stink about costs etc... hence my suggestion to cover that. I’m sure some bank protecting suit type will jump in and explain why it can’t work according to conservative principles but I think it’s the way forward for countries trying to capture tax avoidance.

Enzedder wrote:I notice all the political supporters of the big shop owners and mall owners don't even mention the price gouging rents that NZ retailers have to pay for, and pass on the costs to their clients.

No

Far

King

Eye

Deer

Dark wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Thai guy wrote:Will today be baby day?

You hoping for a boy or a girl?

Gender neutral, of course.

Would imagine so

She also seems like the type who will have a "No toy guns or dolls in the house" policy

eugenius wrote:

Dark wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Thai guy wrote:Will today be baby day?

You hoping for a boy or a girl?

Gender neutral, of course.

Would imagine so

She also seems like the type who will have a "No toy guns or dolls in the house" policy

What poppycock !!

Enzedder wrote:I notice all the political supporters of the big shop owners and mall owners don't even mention the price gouging rents that NZ retailers have to pay for, and pass on the costs to their clients.

No

Far

King

Eye

Deer

guy smiley wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

booji boy wrote:I buy goods overseas all the time from UK and US based sites. No way they are going to collect and pay 15% GST on behalf of Jacinda and her band of merry tax collectors. WTF should they? They are operating in their own tax jurisdiction and meeting their tax obligations there. Why the fudge would they want the admin hassle and compliance costs of collecting and then paying 15% GST to the NZ Govt. Labour trumpeted this as some sort of win because they thought they could get the big players like Amazon to come to the party. But smaller dealerships like the ones I deal with definitely won't. And now even Amazon have given NZ the two fingered salute. Welcome to the real world Jacinda.

Don’t let your anti-labour bias blind you. National will want to tax these companies as much as labour and its considered an international problem. You’d be hard pressed to find any political party anywhere supporting it (outside of where company recognised its revenue). It’s tax avoidance of the worst kind. Are you seriously advocating for that?

Australia doing similar things and fighting the same battle from the opposite side of the political fence...

https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 4ziuf.html

guy smiley wrote:

booji boy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

booji boy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Yes, exactly... with an inbuilt cost factor for them to ‘cover the cost of processing’

The concept seems fair enough. NZ GST is 15% on everything so fairly simple to calculate. Very few exemptions (unlike other countries where certain goods are exempted). I wonder how the financial institutions would feel about it? The banks currently deduct RWT on interest.

Oh they’d kick up a massive stink about costs etc... hence my suggestion to cover that. I’m sure some bank protecting suit type will jump in and explain why it can’t work according to conservative principles but I think it’s the way forward for countries trying to capture tax avoidance.

I dunno. The concept of collecting cash and stashing it away for 30 days before passing it on to Govt would appeal to most financial institutions I would have thought. But I too will wait for some bank type to explain why it can't work.

I just got home and read this on the laptop instead of with my squinty old man eyes on the phone...

minor correction. I wouldn't have the banks collect the GST. I'd have them collecting a levy, tax, whatever, on every transaction that occurs. I'd work out how much that has to be to replace the GST completely... and every other incidental tax. Every transaction collecting a govt fee or tax or levy or pound of flesh, depending on how you like to refer to the messy business of paying to live in a society with benefits.

How much money do you reckon changes hands on a daily basis across the country?
If you applied a percentage collection to every dollar in that...

Thai guy wrote:Baby day tomorrow, perhaps?

deadduck wrote:I think when little Winnie Gayford-Ardern (or is it Winnie Ardern-Gayford or some abominable portmanteau like Gayfern) is eventually deposited on the hospital linens I may have to go dark for a couple of weeks whilst the media frenzy dissipates.

guy smiley wrote:

booji boy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

booji boy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Yes, exactly... with an inbuilt cost factor for them to ‘cover the cost of processing’

The concept seems fair enough. NZ GST is 15% on everything so fairly simple to calculate. Very few exemptions (unlike other countries where certain goods are exempted). I wonder how the financial institutions would feel about it? The banks currently deduct RWT on interest.

Oh they’d kick up a massive stink about costs etc... hence my suggestion to cover that. I’m sure some bank protecting suit type will jump in and explain why it can’t work according to conservative principles but I think it’s the way forward for countries trying to capture tax avoidance.

I dunno. The concept of collecting cash and stashing it away for 30 days before passing it on to Govt would appeal to most financial institutions I would have thought. But I too will wait for some bank type to explain why it can't work.

I just got home and read this on the laptop instead of with my squinty old man eyes on the phone...

minor correction. I wouldn't have the banks collect the GST. I'd have them collecting a levy, tax, whatever, on every transaction that occurs. I'd work out how much that has to be to replace the GST completely... and every other incidental tax. Every transaction collecting a govt fee or tax or levy or pound of flesh, depending on how you like to refer to the messy business of paying to live in a society with benefits.

How much money do you reckon changes hands on a daily basis across the country?
If you applied a percentage collection to every dollar in that...

Sonny Blount wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

booji boy wrote:I buy goods overseas all the time from UK and US based sites. No way they are going to collect and pay 15% GST on behalf of Jacinda and her band of merry tax collectors. WTF should they? They are operating in their own tax jurisdiction and meeting their tax obligations there. Why the fudge would they want the admin hassle and compliance costs of collecting and then paying 15% GST to the NZ Govt. Labour trumpeted this as some sort of win because they thought they could get the big players like Amazon to come to the party. But smaller dealerships like the ones I deal with definitely won't. And now even Amazon have given NZ the two fingered salute. Welcome to the real world Jacinda.

Don’t let your anti-labour bias blind you. National will want to tax these companies as much as labour and its considered an international problem. You’d be hard pressed to find any political party anywhere supporting it (outside of where company recognised its revenue). It’s tax avoidance of the worst kind. Are you seriously advocating for that?

Australia doing similar things and fighting the same battle from the opposite side of the political fence...

https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 4ziuf.html

I love Amazon because they put customer value first, second, and third.


Too bad for governments trying to use them to collect revenue from their populace.

Thai guy wrote:

deadduck wrote:I think when little Winnie Gayford-Ardern (or is it Winnie Ardern-Gayford or some abominable portmanteau like Gayfern) is eventually deposited on the hospital linens I may have to go dark for a couple of weeks whilst the media frenzy dissipates.

How ironic that you have the child of a former PM as your avatar.

Enzedder wrote:I notice all the political supporters of the big shop owners and mall owners don't even mention the price gouging rents that NZ retailers have to pay for, and pass on the costs to their clients.

Gordon Bennett wrote:

Enzedder wrote:I notice all the political supporters of the big shop owners and mall owners don't even mention the price gouging rents that NZ retailers have to pay for, and pass on the costs to their clients.

I worked for a number of years looking after the finances for a large retail network. I think I have a vague idea what I'm talking about.

As for rent gouging, I'm aware of some retailers who price gouge themselves - renting the retailer their own own property at high rates in order to gain the ultimate owner a higher personal income. Some might call that a conflict of interest, others might call it fraud. But it happens in corruption free New Zealand. Furthermore, you point out a retailer who's owned their own property for years and takes advantage of their lower costs to charge the consumer lower prices. You won't find one.

deadduck wrote:Things would also end up being taxed more than once

E.g. Say you withdraw $1000 from the bank and use it to pay your gardener. They then bank it. Is that two transactions or one? If you just did a money transfer, would it be two transactions or one?

And if they don't bank it, but instead use it to pay the babysitter, and then the babysitter uses it to pay to get her nails done, and then the salon owner uses it to buy afternoon tea for her staff etc ... that money can go around and around in the cash economy avoiding your transaction tax. But if these things are done electronically, is the money taxed half a dozen times?

Sonny Blount wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

booji boy wrote:I buy goods overseas all the time from UK and US based sites. No way they are going to collect and pay 15% GST on behalf of Jacinda and her band of merry tax collectors. WTF should they? They are operating in their own tax jurisdiction and meeting their tax obligations there. Why the fudge would they want the admin hassle and compliance costs of collecting and then paying 15% GST to the NZ Govt. Labour trumpeted this as some sort of win because they thought they could get the big players like Amazon to come to the party. But smaller dealerships like the ones I deal with definitely won't. And now even Amazon have given NZ the two fingered salute. Welcome to the real world Jacinda.

Don’t let your anti-labour bias blind you. National will want to tax these companies as much as labour and its considered an international problem. You’d be hard pressed to find any political party anywhere supporting it (outside of where company recognised its revenue). It’s tax avoidance of the worst kind. Are you seriously advocating for that?

Australia doing similar things and fighting the same battle from the opposite side of the political fence...

https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 4ziuf.html

I love Amazon because they put customer value first, second, and third.


Too bad for governments trying to use them to collect revenue from their populace.

deadduck wrote:Things would also end up being taxed more than once

E.g. Say you withdraw $1000 from the bank and use it to pay your gardener. They then bank it. Is that two transactions or one? If you just did a money transfer, would it be two transactions or one?

And if they don't bank it, but instead use it to pay the babysitter, and then the babysitter uses it to pay to get her nails done, and then the salon owner uses it to buy afternoon tea for her staff etc ... that money can go around and around in the cash economy avoiding your transaction tax. But if these things are done electronically, is the money taxed half a dozen times?

#MeTooNZ: Govt considers ACC for workers traumatised by sexual harassment

Enzedder wrote:

#MeTooNZ: Govt considers ACC for workers traumatised by sexual harassment

Excellent work if this goes ahead - even better if they add bullying to the list of acceptable claims.

Companies invariably ignore both and sweep them under the table with faux investigations. Having an active ACC claim will hit them both in the pocket and force them to work with the affected staff member to put the situation right so that they can return.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... harassment

(It a long story so read it it you care; don't care if you don't)

deadduck wrote:Things would also end up being taxed more than once

E.g. Say you withdraw $1000 from the bank and use it to pay your gardener. They then bank it. Is that two transactions or one? If you just did a money transfer, would it be two transactions or one?

And if they don't bank it, but instead use it to pay the babysitter, and then the babysitter uses it to pay to get her nails done, and then the salon owner uses it to buy afternoon tea for her staff etc ... that money can go around and around in the cash economy avoiding your transaction tax. But if these things are done electronically, is the money taxed half a dozen times?

grouch wrote:

deadduck wrote:Things would also end up being taxed more than once

E.g. Say you withdraw $1000 from the bank and use it to pay your gardener. They then bank it. Is that two transactions or one? If you just did a money transfer, would it be two transactions or one?

And if they don't bank it, but instead use it to pay the babysitter, and then the babysitter uses it to pay to get her nails done, and then the salon owner uses it to buy afternoon tea for her staff etc ... that money can go around and around in the cash economy avoiding your transaction tax. But if these things are done electronically, is the money taxed half a dozen times?

What's being discussed here is sounding a lot like a FTT/ Tobin tax .

Which if introduced comprehensively would eliminate GST completely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM

grouch wrote:

Enzedder wrote:

#MeTooNZ: Govt considers ACC for workers traumatised by sexual harassment

Excellent work if this goes ahead - even better if they add bullying to the list of acceptable claims.

Companies invariably ignore both and sweep them under the table with faux investigations. Having an active ACC claim will hit them both in the pocket and force them to work with the affected staff member to put the situation right so that they can return.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... harassment

(It a long story so read it it you care; don't care if you don't)

I agree that bullying should be included . if anything sexual harassment is a subset of Bullying .

deadduck wrote:

grouch wrote:

Enzedder wrote:

#MeTooNZ: Govt considers ACC for workers traumatised by sexual harassment

Excellent work if this goes ahead - even better if they add bullying to the list of acceptable claims.

Companies invariably ignore both and sweep them under the table with faux investigations. Having an active ACC claim will hit them both in the pocket and force them to work with the affected staff member to put the situation right so that they can return.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... harassment

(It a long story so read it it you care; don't care if you don't)

I agree that bullying should be included . if anything sexual harassment is a subset of Bullying .

Who decides what constitutes bullying? I reckon that'll be one thing that's very difficult to legislate around, how to tell the difference between genuine bullying and someone's hurt feelings or simply two people that don't like each other.

Kahu wrote:I was accused of workplace bullying recently while training another employee. When asked by management I said I gave honest feedback without ad hominem attacks. Once they googled what ad hominem meant they asked me what was said. Both the accuser and I gave similar answers. I now have a new trainee and the last trainee has been given unpopular tasks luckily for me though the unhappy trainee was truthful about what was said, a more intelligent and manipulative person could easily have made things a lot more difficult.

Mr Mike wrote:I’m sure we can all come together (other than ENZ) to congratulate Sir William.

jono45 wrote:

Enzedder wrote:I notice all the political supporters of the big shop owners and mall owners don't even mention the price gouging rents that NZ retailers have to pay for, and pass on the costs to their clients.

No

Far

King

Eye

Deer

So what planet do you live on ? Are these shop tenanted and do these businesses turn a.profit in the face of internet shopping