Planet Rugby Forum

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:
Any tax cut no matter how it's styled 'disproportionately' advantages those who pay the most tax. But I guess as long as there are fiscally apathetic people that vote, the "tax cuts for the rich" mantra repeated by the left will continue to gain political traction. There's simply no way with NZ's income tax structure to give a tax cut that doesn't end up with high income earners getting the most out of it.

Yup, agreed... although there is a mechanism for low income earner relief. The Australian system, where you have a tax free threshold earnings amount, currently somewhere close to $18k. No-one pays tax on that first amount... that directly assists low earners more than anyone else.

guy smiley wrote:

booji boy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:
Any tax cut no matter how it's styled 'disproportionately' advantages those who pay the most tax. But I guess as long as there are fiscally apathetic people that vote, the "tax cuts for the rich" mantra repeated by the left will continue to gain political traction. There's simply no way with NZ's income tax structure to give a tax cut that doesn't end up with high income earners getting the most out of it.

Yup, agreed... although there is a mechanism for low income earner relief. The Australian system, where you have a tax free threshold earnings amount, currently somewhere close to $18k. No-one pays tax on that first amount... that directly assists low earners more than anyone else.

I really like that idea. Pretty sure that's how it worked in the UK too. To avoid high income earners benefiting unduly from it you could bring in an abatement where the tax free amount reduces over a certain level of income. For example 0-70,000 receive the first say 20,000 tax free. 70-80k only receive the first 15,000 tax free. 80-90k only the first 10,000 90-100k only the first 5,000 and >100k no tax free income. At that level you pay tax on every cent but still at the lower tax rates for the first 70k. Not saying these are the amounts or thresholds we should use but just trying to illustrate how a system like that might work to really, tangibly benefit lower income earners whilst not giving away the tax free benefits to higher income earners who don't need it.

I don't see the need for that myself. I gather it's a sort of sop to those who cry 'unfair' about high income earners and tax. The Australian system is straightforward... no-one pays tax on that first 18K, then there's a rate on each bracket and your tax is calculated accordingly. The more you earn the more tax you pay and that seems fair to me. Having a sliding scale as you suggest would be hard to administer and add complexity and, dare I say it... be unfair to high income earners because they'd get slugged at both ends.

Not that there's anything wrong, etc.

Any tax cut no matter how it's styled 'disproportionately' advantages those who pay the most tax.

Wilderbeast wrote:Having the first $18k tax-free might cost a lot more than you realise.

deadduck wrote:Having a tax free threshold and having WFF at the same time is probably not possible or necessary.

That might be the bit Guy is not familiar with, and is the key difference between the Oz and NZ tax systems.

guy smiley wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Having the first $18k tax-free might cost a lot more than you realise.

Yes of course you'd need to look at the whole system and crank the rates up at the other end to make up that hole.

yeah... NZ's income tax is quite simple compared to Australia's.

33% from $70,000

30%: $48,001 to $70,000

17.5%: $14,001 to $48,000

10.5%: $0 to $14,000

compared to

Resident Tax Rates 2014 - 2015
Taxable income Tax on this income
$18,201– $37,000 19c for each $1 over $18,200
$37,001 - $80,000 $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001 - $180,000 $17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
$180,001 and over* $54,547 plus 45c for every $1 over $180,000

I'm surprised NZ's rate is so low. Dirty tories obviously looking after their mates at the top end of town, naturally.

Seriously though... if you were considering adding a tax free threshold then you could shift the brackets and modify the rates without causing too much angst. ummmm... maybe

Interesting to note that Australia's GST rate is still 10% and due to the nature of the legislation, difficult to shift without full agreement from the states.

booji boy wrote:

deadduck wrote:Having a tax free threshold and having WFF at the same time is probably not possible or necessary.

That might be the bit Guy is not familiar with, and is the key difference between the Oz and NZ tax systems.

Yeah a tax free threshold could replace WFF. Hopefully a lot simpler to administer.

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:Having a tax free threshold and having WFF at the same time is probably not possible or necessary.

That might be the bit Guy is not familiar with, and is the key difference between the Oz and NZ tax systems.

WFF is that family support payment, isn't it? An income booster? Does that act to keep wages down?

deadduck wrote:

booji boy wrote:

deadduck wrote:Having a tax free threshold and having WFF at the same time is probably not possible or necessary.

That might be the bit Guy is not familiar with, and is the key difference between the Oz and NZ tax systems.

Yeah a tax free threshold could replace WFF. Hopefully a lot simpler to administer.

You're right but realistically the idea is way too laissez-faire to ever be politically palatable in NZ

booji boy wrote:

deadduck wrote:

booji boy wrote:

deadduck wrote:Having a tax free threshold and having WFF at the same time is probably not possible or necessary.

That might be the bit Guy is not familiar with, and is the key difference between the Oz and NZ tax systems.

Yeah a tax free threshold could replace WFF. Hopefully a lot simpler to administer.

You're right but realistically the idea is way too laissez-faire to ever be politically palatable in NZ

That is strange considering it's Ok in OZ and the UK.

booji boy wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Having the first $18k tax-free might cost a lot more than you realise.

Yes of course you'd need to look at the whole system and crank the rates up at the other end to make up that hole.

Wilderbeast wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Having the first $18k tax-free might cost a lot more than you realise.

Yes of course you'd need to look at the whole system and crank the rates up at the other end to make up that hole.

Yep. I wouldn't be against it though. A new tax rate above $150k or $200k maybe - possibly higher? Something along those lines.

Fat Old Git wrote:And find a way to tax those who really re rich, as they don't usually pay much in the way of "income" tax.

guy smiley wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Having the first $18k tax-free might cost a lot more than you realise.

Yes of course you'd need to look at the whole system and crank the rates up at the other end to make up that hole.

Yep. I wouldn't be against it though. A new tax rate above $150k or $200k maybe - possibly higher? Something along those lines.

Looking at the OZ tax rates GS quoted above a 45c rate cuts in at $180k. Our top rate of 33c cuts in at only $70k. Massive difference.

Yeah... but we're paying almost that much from only 37K.

guy smiley wrote:Bloody John Key

Wilderbeast wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Having the first $18k tax-free might cost a lot more than you realise.

Yes of course you'd need to look at the whole system and crank the rates up at the other end to make up that hole.

Yep. I wouldn't be against it though. A new tax rate above $150k or $200k maybe - possibly higher? Something along those lines.

grouch wrote:Meanwhile , in the absence of anything else to distract & obfusicate the spin merchants have fed us another titbit on the JLR vs Simon saga

No mention of cash donations though.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12154546

Seneca of the Night wrote:

grouch wrote:

grouch wrote:Meanwhile , in the absence of anything else to distract & obfusicate the spin merchants have fed us another titbit on the JLR vs Simon saga

No mention of cash donations though.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12154546

And someone with slightly more credibility than the Grouch Foundation backs up what I've been banging on about.

We have a BIG problem and it needs fixing.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... cy--report

He said the MMP electoral system had led to lower levels of public scrutiny for list MPs, "and a developing notion that at least some of these MPs informally represent an ethnic community rather than New Zealanders as a whole".

"The move to MMP has coincided with the growth of identity politics, which has a tendency to formalise and reify the fracture lines of identity groups as the basis for political action, rather than to break down group barriers, emphasise a common humanity and seek shared ground."

High and rising levels of both emigration and immigration had also had an impact, with high levels of "population churn" likely to undermine participation and social connections while possibly changing New Zealand's political balance.

Chapple was critical of New Zealand's economic performance, saying 50 years of low productivity growth had not yet been solved despite multiple attempts, with the current "solution du jour" based on "attaching ourselves to the coat-tails of the fast growing Asian economies".

He said the aggressive pursuit of ties with China, despite its status as an unequal and authoritarian country which had shown a willingness to "weaponise" its economic engagements, carried significant risks.

Holy shit YES.

He suggested the introduction of a strong civics programme at schools, coupled with lowering the voting age to 16 - although he acknowledged there would be "significant political challenges to overcome", including a perception that most teachers held centre-left beliefs.

Holy crap NO.

deadduck wrote:I think it would be great to put 16-18 year olds through some kind of in depth civics programme but we can do that without actually requiring them to vote.
Allowing them to vote whilst being educated on how to vote will mean far too much influence coming from their teachers and peers. There's already too much bubble politics.

booji boy wrote:Assuming the Govt cancel his residency when will he be deported? How much longer does he have to serve on his current sentence?

Dark wrote:

booji boy wrote:Assuming the Govt cancel his residency when will he be deported? How much longer does he have to serve on his current sentence?

Think that is a good question

Galloway has written him a letter granting it.

It isn't as easy as just changing your mind once that is done apparently.

And he also has very expensive lawyers

Will probably happen, but can see it going through the courts and being a mini KDC first

Mr Mike wrote:

Dark wrote:

booji boy wrote:Assuming the Govt cancel his residency when will he be deported? How much longer does he have to serve on his current sentence?

Think that is a good question

Galloway has written him a letter granting it.

It isn't as easy as just changing your mind once that is done apparently.

And he also has very expensive lawyers

Will probably happen, but can see it going through the courts and being a mini KDC first

If material information was withheld (such as trips taken back to Czechia) the Government may have an option to expedite his removal. I’m sure they don’t want this to linger for months with “read between the lines” being trotted out repeatedly.

Time for some Helen-like efficiency.

Dark wrote:Galloway has to be a goner.

It is untenable to have him stay on as minister.

I'd guess Ardern was just waiting for the conference to happen and parliament to take a break in a week.

Doubt she can put it off till the xmas break

grouch wrote:

Dark wrote:Galloway has to be a goner.

It is untenable to have him stay on as minister.

I'd guess Ardern was just waiting for the conference to happen and parliament to take a break in a week.

Doubt she can put it off till the xmas break

It took Kate Wilkinson 2 years to resign as Minister of labour after 29 deaths in the Pike river mine.

-Just sayin'

Mr Mike wrote:

grouch wrote:

Dark wrote:Galloway has to be a goner.

It is untenable to have him stay on as minister.

I'd guess Ardern was just waiting for the conference to happen and parliament to take a break in a week.

Doubt she can put it off till the xmas break

It took Kate Wilkinson 2 years to resign as Minister of labour after 29 deaths in the Pike river mine.

-Just sayin'

I was thinking Denis Marshall.

Flockwitt wrote:What I want to know is how he got residence on a false passport in the first place. That shouldn't happen with the requirements needed. Where was his police record? Or did he fudge that off of the Czech government with the false passport, or counterfeit everything? Let's get that side of the story and then we'd be in a better position to judge the rest of it...

The Housing Minister has quietly softened up the penalties applied to buyers who flip their home. Owners will no longer have to give up all capital gain they make on the house if they sell it within three years. When Labour announced the policy in 2016, its plan to stop buyers reaping windfall gains was they must not on-sell their home for five years - or else they had to hand all the money they made to the Government.That's now changed to if buyers sell within three years, they must give up 30 percent of their profit.

Dark wrote:Galloway has to be a goner.

It is untenable to have him stay on as minister.

I'd guess Ardern was just waiting for the conference to happen and parliament to take a break in a week.

Doubt she can put it off till the xmas break

Wilderbeast wrote:

Dark wrote:Galloway has to be a goner.

It is untenable to have him stay on as minister.

I'd guess Ardern was just waiting for the conference to happen and parliament to take a break in a week.

Doubt she can put it off till the xmas break

I think we’re far too quick to demand the heads of our politicians in this country. He is probably still the best choice for the position out of the Labour Party. They’re hardly bursting with unused talent.

Seneca of the Night wrote:Winston's schedule:

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters will travel to Europe today to open two new New Zealand embassies, hold bilateral talks, and attend Armistice Day centenary commemorations.

In Sweden Mr Peters will open New Zealand’s Embassy in Stockholm. He is also scheduled to meet with Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Margot Wallström, and will deliver a speech at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs.

“A stronger relationship with Sweden and other Nordic countries will allow New Zealand to advance our interests in the European Union, and take advantage of opportunities arising from an EU-NZ Free Trade Agreement”, said Mr Peters.

Mr Peters will then travel to London to meet with UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt to discuss relations with the UK as it redefines its global role post-Brexit. The two Foreign Ministers will also mark the Armistice Day centenary with a half-time tribute during the All Blacks-England test match at Twickenham.

The Minister will also represent New Zealand at Armistice Day commemorations in France and attend the Paris Peace Forum, which is being convened by President Emmanuel Macron to discuss current global security challenges.

Mr Peters will then travel to Dublin to open New Zealand’s first resident Embassy in Ireland. He will hold talks with the Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney. While in Dublin he will also deliver a speech to the Institute of International and European Affairs.

On his return leg from Europe, the Foreign Minister will attend the East Asia Summit in Singapore and APEC meeting in Papua New Guinea.

Mr Peters departs for Europe on 7 November and returns on 19 November.

Busy busy.

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/for ... s-and-apec