15278 of 62028 members online
Coffee Machines 720 GetFrank GymJunkie Menu Mania Snow Surf Varsity

Forgot Your Password? Create Account
[quote]
Unfucinbelievable Mad this has to b the biggest rip off since milli vanilli
...John Key pre election "no we wont raise GST" YEAH RIGHT
now you want us to shell out even more to buy the necessities of life while wages have risen sod all ...minimum wage rise was an insult to any working person.
Time to cut the gst off food alltogether & wack it to 15% for anything else ie alcohol smokes and 20% for luxury goods....aka flash bmw's/mercs big v8's yachts jewellery speedboats ie all the shit we dont need and the stuff the rich can afford to pay (instead of dodging tax like the always do) ie most politicians!
[quote]
well that was well presented.

Do you agree all top tax rates should be the same to stop people avoiding some tax by complexe trust/income/company structures?

Do you agree that if AUS has a lower company tax than we do trans tasman companies will record income in AUS to lower their tax take.

Do you agree that with an already higher income level talented Kiwis are more likely to go to AUS to work - thereby depriving us of skills/ tax.

Do you agree that different tax rates for different products is fucking retarded. Define food versus luxury goods - Is caviar a food or a luxury good? What about alcoholic chocolates?

And really - not raising GST, its a smart thing to do and if you look at Keys comments in the context of "we currently arent thinking about it" rather than we will never do it we promise as politicians its not such a big deal.

It would be a shame to pass a good policy simply because a couple of years ago they hadn't considered the need.

But by all means - go rage against the rich.
[quote]
the rich will prob pay more tax in gst on their luxury goods anyway
[quote]
Income tax rather than GST but, http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2009/taxpayers/01.htm

So the top 4% of NZers pay 25% of the tax. In the US it seems the top 10% pay 70% and the top 1% pay 40% http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Personally I dont see GST going up by 2.5% as a big deal. Hell, fuel volatility can change the price of staples by more than that. Add to that the NZ dollar and a consumption tax is the best way to tackle the current situation. Encourage investment and dept repayment, discourage spending and hence debt.
[quote]
It's not just the gst that has people fuming mad, but the combined impact of that and other changes to the tax system, and the avoidance of any capital gains tax, all of which cumulatively favour the wealthy.

Re the volume of tax paid by the wealthy, a fair tax system does not treat different people the same, a fair system treats people differently on the basis of their different ability to pay.
[quote]
quote:
=OneHappy a fair system treats people differently on the basis of their different ability to pay.

which is exactly how GST works. If you cant afford to buy the item you dont pay the tax! Razz
[quote]
ok, that is a noble anthem to repeat without any useful arguments in it.

Its been done a thousand times before but in your opinion should people get paid for what they are worth or the same as anyone else who works x amount of hours?

Skipping ahead, should people who work (for whatever reason) 40 hours a week be penalised at a higher rate than those who work 40 hours if the extra takes them into the next tax bracket.

We have a tax system that is progressive against the more you earn and we have a social welfare system that pays you for how little you earn (progressively, working for families). I dont hear people complaining when social welfare goes up or when tax is increased for the wealthy. But you can always adjust it in the direction that suits you.

Next - would you agree that having more 'rich' people each paying a lower rate is better than a few rich people paying a slightly higher rate? Assuming that the tax take will increase in the medium/long term?

What did you think of the old 66% tax rate?

Capital gains tax - not sure i fully support it though i do like the land tax idea or something like it. However it should be put in slowly. In the short term there two reasons why i dont support it at the moment and why i think it was prudent not to put it in. The housing market already suffered just on the hint of it, actually signalling it would have a) put a serious dent in our recovery. b) increased rents for people who are already struggling with wage freezes and unemployment.

Do you support lowering the company tax rate more in line with Aus and do you support making company trust and income tax all the same level? If not on a simplicity level but also a saving money at the application of tax laws on both sides? It will certainly put a lot of trust lawyers out of business Very Happy
[quote]
btw - what do you define 'rich' as? At the moment people get the 33% tax rate over 48K and 38% over 70K. Neither of which are really 'rich' and many of whom are hard working technical or medical or business people, most of whom we have shortages of in NZ... Doctors? Specialists? Engineers?
[quote]
bob said:

So the top 4% of NZers pay 25% of the tax. .

Pointless stat without telling me what percentage of INCOME the top 4% take.
If they're taking 25% of the income then that's insanely fair (they won't be but you can see my point). If they're taking 15-20% of the income then it's still highly appropriate - mildly progressive taxation is much more equitable. And NZ actually has a much less progressive income tax base than, say, Australia - our bottom 50% of earners pay a much bigger share of the tax take, and our top 10% pay much less than the Aussie equivalents.

But yes, tellurian seems to be a bit pointless in general with his rants and I'm not really against a GST rise if it's netted out against all tax paid - the pure focus on income tax is a bit pointless.
[quote]
And remember, "I like to pay taxes - with them I buy civilisation".
[quote]
G-Dub said:
...NZ actually has a much less progressive income tax base than, say, Australia - our bottom 50% of earners pay a much bigger share of the tax take, and our top 10% pay much less than the Aussie equivalents.

Do you think this a key issue of raising GST? They might say it'll be offset by lower taxes but will it be a case a chunk of people in the middle actually being worse off?

What people will be worse off if, for example, they raised GST to 15% and dropped the tax rates (I can't remember the variations on brackets/rates)? Are there likely to be groups who miss out?
[quote]
bob said:
well that was well presented.

bob said:
that is a noble anthem to repeat without any useful arguments in it.

'Noble sentiment' as you put it certainly doenst suit the pursuit of individual wealth does it? Likewise i guess the ethical argument to treat different people different isnt especially useful when it come to getting rich either, is it? The truth is, you actually don't concern yourself with the growing gap in wealth in this country, for you its not a problem.
[quote]
GDub - I guess you have to look at income when talking about rich people? GST is a flat tax that doesnt discriminate but affects the poor proportionally more.

OneHappy - Do you want to actually engage in a discussion or just bemoan the unjustness of inequality. What exatly is your *specific* view of the solution.

Theres two relevant parts to 'wealth' to look at - the wealth of the country and the distribution of wealth within that country. There is a balance to be had with both. I would suggest that looking at the extremes is a) meaningless b) not a good way to choose policy.

And how about you focus on the issue rather than your arrogant version of 'the truth'.

Details OneHappy - What do you think should be done and why - and if youre up to it comment on the questions i posed.
[quote]
G-Dub said:
bob said:

So the top 4% of NZers pay 25% of the tax. .

Pointless stat without telling me what percentage of INCOME the top 4% take.
If they're taking 25% of the income then that's insanely fair (they won't be but you can see my point). If they're taking 15-20% of the income then it's still highly appropriate - mildly progressive taxation is much more equitable. And NZ actually has a much less progressive income tax base than, say, Australia - our bottom 50% of earners pay a much bigger share of the tax take, and our top 10% pay much less than the Aussie equivalents.


Just to clarify this. One happy seems to be suggesting we can forcibly redistribute income to produce something along the lines of equality. My comments on the top earners were along the lines of if the redistribute themselves elsewhere in the world then we lose a hell of a lot of our tax take and the people at the bottom will get less (or there will be less to give elsewhere).

I'm after a system that, generally, rewards hard work and ability and supports people who help themselves. Thats not to say there wont be people at each end who shaft the system but like I said - the extremes aren't where you make policy. The system isnt too bad at the moment but needs some tweaking and gradually, not shock. Personally I'd love to see all the trusts created become pointless through the alignment of the rates on all of the income/ wealth vehicles. I would also like to see doctors and other professionals rewarded *somewhat* for sticking around in NZ.
[quote]
living here should be reward enough.... jeeze its not like its a living hell being in NZ - Auckland regularly appears on stupid lists suggesting its a great place to live - I assume this is for rch and poor

if people move simply cause they can earn more somehwere else there is little in a tax regime that will keep them here - unless the system is heavily skewed towards them paying fuck all tax which isn't perhaps in the countries best interests

how does them third world countries get and retain doctors and other professionals?
[quote]
Living here is good, we enjoy a high standard of living. This is based in part on our history of primary produce and lowish population density. But that isnt going to sustain us indefinitely.

I disagree on the tax regime having little to no effect. It will have *some* effect. More, the people who have more income still spend their money generally. Either on consumption which increases our GST take or on investment, some of which allows more productivity in NZ. Then there's the whole speed of money circulation. Tax reductions generally mean the money increases in rotation meaning higher tax takes - A lower rate but more often.

I'm not suggesting a tax system heavily skewed towards them paying fuck all. Im suggesting a system that is reasonably straight forward and not convoluted. One that promotes investment/ debt repayment and to some degree punishes non productive spending, especially if from borrowed money. 30% top tax rate is hardly a massive drop but it brings us more in line with AUS, especially in regards to companies which can tailor their earnings to favour lower tax areas. How many of you guys always shop at a more expensive supermarket simply because it has slightly nicer people working there?

Re 3rd world : they don't really but those that do are there for sense of duty rather than money.
[quote]
bob said:
well that was well presented.

Do you agree all top tax rates should be the same to stop people avoiding some tax by complexe trust/income/company structures?
*yes the avoidance of tax by means of trusts and company structures is unfair and allows individuals as highlighted recently to claim social services or benefits that they can well afford. Also the fact that we as nz'rs get taxed on what little we do save is an absolute disgrace ...hell we pay when we earn it then when we spend it and then when we try to save it >> how fuced is that? apparently we as a nation need to save more wot a FJoke ther is nothing left to save

Do you agree that if AUS has a lower company tax than we do trans tasman companies will record income in AUS to lower their tax take.
they prob do this anyway

Do you agree that with an already higher income level talented Kiwis are more likely to go to AUS to work - thereby depriving us of skills/ tax.
*they do anyway...cost of living when i was there was way cheaper...gap has closed up now and since they have introduced gst they are paying alot ...however their infastructure is way better (ie buses trains roads etc)

Do you agree that different tax rates for different products is fucking retarded. Define food versus luxury goods - Is caviar a food or a luxury good? What about alcoholic chocolates?
*no gst on food this is fucked people HAVE to eat polticians might suck shit to survive but with 1 in 4 nz children living in poverty and food banks the next big buy for kiwibank (joke!) i thinki this needs serious attention ...alcholic chocolates/caviar r definately NOT a food item on my menu and anyone who wants these sort of non essential luxury foods should pay the price for their indulgencen IMHO Smile

And really - not raising GST, its a smart thing to do and if you look at Keys comments in the context of "we currently arent thinking about it" rather than we will never do it we promise as politicians its not such a big deal.

It would be a shame to pass a good policy simply because a couple of years ago they hadn't considered the need.

But by all means - go rage against the rich.
*np with that ...i mean how much do u really need to be happy Smile its apity that the wealthy ..apart from a few aultruistic souls ...dont give more towards the assistance and help of others way less fortunate...
[quote]
briefly -

I think youll find it is middle income NZ that are ripping the welfare system off not the 'rich' but you havent defined what you view the 'rich' as yet. Also, it is easy to shuffle wealth around, not so much with income (it is still taxed at one of the 30something% rates).

Company tax - some do im sure - look at Google billing out of Ireland. However with NZ companies it creates an incentive to actually move to the bigger market. If we are closer then there is less incentive and our tax take may actually improve. The IRD does look for this kind of behaviour but outside of certain approximations its hard to fully stop. 'Doing it anyway' is hardly a reason though.

Do you think that decreasing the top tax rate will help keep skilled professionals in NZ or have no affect?

how do you propose to separate non gst food from gst food? Are potatoes non GST but potato crisps gst? What about baked potatoes?

I question what your definition of poverty is but lets say, not being well looked after as we would expect. Is a change in tax going to fix that by any significant amount? Would an increase in welfare be a better idea (as suggested).

And what a stupidly broad statement about the rich not giving... Theres cunts all over the place and as far as i can tell the rich have no fewer or more than other groups. There are a huge number of successful people who spent a lot of time & money in their communities. A large proportion do it for the right reasons and dont make a PR campaign out of it.
[quote]
bob said:
OneHappy - Do you want to actually engage in a discussion or just bemoan the unjustness of inequality. What exatly is your *specific* view of the solution.

The thread topic provids a very open brief, its not calling for technical commentary, and for that reason my views, which are based around ethics and the problem of inequity are entirely appropriate.

Perhaps instead you would like instead to address the ethical and practical problems of inequality?

An issue underlying this entire topic is power, so its interesting that you stance has been to quickly take the high ground of attempting to define the topic, and then - impatiently, and with obvious underlying emotion - make a ruling on how it can and cannot be addressed.
[quote]
now the thread gets interesting....
[quote]
OneHappy said:
bob said:
OneHappy - Do you want to actually engage in a discussion or just bemoan the unjustness of inequality. What exatly is your *specific* view of the solution.

The thread topic provids a very open brief, its not calling for technical commentary, and for that reason my views, which are based around ethics and the problem of inequity are entirely appropriate.

Perhaps instead you would like instead to address the ethical and practical problems of inequality?

An issue underlying this entire topic is power, so its interesting that you stance has been [b]to quickly take the high ground of attempting to define the topic, and then - impatiently, and with obvious underlying emotion[/b] - make a ruling on how it can and cannot be addressed.


Yes Bob...perhaps a little less of the emotive comments like.."well that was well presented" ..."stupidly broad" and "arrogant version of the truth" towards others postings might help people be more responsive towards so some good discussion points you raise? Smile you are of course free to disagree... Smile

Bob -regarding food stuffs and GST ...IMHO Smile essential foods are items like: bread, butter, fruit (yep all fruit) vegetables (yep all vegetables), meat (all types) , milk, flour, cheese, seafood, eggs, nuts, raisins, legumes, canned beans, soup, tomatoes etc.

however overly processed/nutrionally void versions of food that contribute to NZ being the third ranked most obese population in the world Smile , like potato chips, cheezels, sweets, icecream, energy drinks/softdrinks coke etc etc should be GST added items.. this would have a mutiple benefits, people would eat healthier, there would be less tooth decay (less fizzy drinks and juice rotting teeth) the toll on the health system would drop as the population ate better/lost weight, thereby maintaining a higher level of population health.
Electricity should also be excluded so people can stay warm and healthy along with products that provide an incentive to insulate the home ie batts, double glazing, underfloor insulation etc.

Items like fuel...essential for transport in NZ because most of our infrastructure is rundown, or non existant (ie light rail in canterbury) should also be exempt IMHO...retain the ACC levies by all means (but this is another area of high discrepancies and another topic Smile )

Do people really need jet skis, jet boats, big luxury yachts, or holiday baches, 60" plasma teles, or huge luxury 4 wheel drives etc etc etc...these items along with cigarettes and alcohol should be taxed at really high rates ...usually the folks buying these things are pretty well off (apart from the grog and cigies that is) or have disposable income ( and my own personal definition of being well off FYI... would be any household with a combined income of $100,000 pa and if your earning $200,000+ pa then your in the rich catagory again IMHO ...ur view may differ Smile )
[quote]
It still sounds stupid to me that you're using GST as a moral tax rather than a consumption tax.

It also sounds pretty simplistic to think that anything that isn't "essential foods" should be taxed the full 15% and then you go on to comment on "luxury goods" as if there's nothing else in the middle. Would you take GST off Perrier? How about caviar? What about boutique/premium cheese products?

When I read Bob's sarcastic "well presented" statement I actually agreed with it in the context that your points and the way you made them were just senseless and your second attempt ain't any better either.
[quote]
karhoo1 said:
It still sounds stupid to me that you're using GST as a moral tax rather than a consumption tax.

It also sounds pretty simplistic to think that anything that isn't "essential foods" should be taxed the full 15% and then you go on to comment on "luxury goods" as if there's nothing else in the middle. Would you take GST off Perrier? How about caviar? What about boutique/premium cheese products?

When I read Bob's sarcastic "well presented" statement I actually agreed with it in the context that your points and the way you made them were just senseless and your second attempt ain't any better either.

...
hmmm more derision and sarcasm [ my turn for vitriolic comment Neutral ].. instead of helpful discussion and thoughtful interjection .........perhaps i am underestimating the intelligence of the end users ...will now unwatch topic and fuc off and leave this discussion to the know all's whose unconstructive and puerile comments seem to be based on personal attacks and diatribe without any useful ideas thoughts/solutions of their own... well NZ we deserve what we get......a nation that just accepts cos thats how it is bro Rolling Eyes
[quote]
bob said:
btw - what do you define 'rich' as? At the moment people get the 33% tax rate over 48K and 38% over 70K. Neither of which are really 'rich' and many of whom are hard working technical or medical or business people, most of whom we have shortages of in NZ... Doctors? Specialists? Engineers?

Considering that 76% of income earners earn less than $50k and only 10% over $70K (see http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2009/taxpayers/01.htm), then I would say that $70k income qualifies you are 'rich' in comparing yourself to other income earners. Lets not also forget that the average wage is around $48k, the median is only around $32k. That said I'd like to see the top tax rate kick in at $100k rather than $70k if it is to change. I don't buy the line that we must equalise businses trust and personal rates, other countries don't why should we have to. There is a 16% gap in Australia, it's just that the rate kicks in high enough not to affect many. There is definitely no need to have the trust rate the same as the company rate, if you going to put assets in trust it shouldn't be possible to get a lower tax rate. A stated policy of keeping everything the same at the top also limits movements in company tax as other rates have to fall inline with this. I don't like the argument that people are ripping off the system so we should change the system to suit, could you imagine it being done on benefits? So why should high income earners get away with it?

Somewhat related, I think the government is smarter than some are giving them credit for. Don't be surprised if the minimum wage goes up at the same time GST does to $13.25 as the Department of Labour originally suggested.
[quote]
OneHappy said:
The thread topic provids a very open brief, its not calling for technical commentary, and for that reason my views, which are based around ethics and the problem of inequity are entirely appropriate.


Technical commentary... like how changes affect various people and whether it achieves what it is set out to? Or what would be a better goal and/method to achieve it? The initial thread was about GST but it obviously goes with the other suggestions in the context of trying to make tax neutral changes.

OneHappy said:
Perhaps instead you would like instead to address the ethical and practical problems of inequality?
Well we could drag up some of the old threads on socialism/central planning. More than that you haven't actually said anything specific so perhaps if you were to state a position other than 'we should address inequality' or how you suggest we achieve that and at the same time address some of the flow on causes of that?

OneHappy said:

An issue underlying this entire topic is power, so its interesting that you stance has been to quickly take the high ground of attempting to define the topic, and then - impatiently, and with obvious underlying emotion - make a ruling on how it can and cannot be addressed.
well id suggest that power (not just in the explicit, americanised sense) is at the heart of all society/ politics. I was pre-emptively putting up the problems with the common populist but often not well thought out suggestions on how to make an equitable system.

And I make no apology for being impatient with someone who cant read the forum FAQ at the top of the forum or form a proper argument.

I would really, really, love someone with a socialism bent to explain how a strongly socialist system would work in a non enclosed country. ie how do you stop the people with ability leaving and still pay for those things that create national wealth. Unless you have natural resources (which NZ isnt too bad off with). The only person I've seen attempt to explain is Vadz who has no tolerance for anyone who isnt for the 'greater good'.
[quote]
Thats not to make assumptions about anyones position or beliefs but as people seem to be lacking in detail and reasonings its hard to think exactly what yu think.

I have you assume that while you think any earnings over a certain level are unneccessary you arent about to tax people 100% of their income over a certain amount - Obviously people just wouldnt bother and either structure their lives to avoid it through less work/ other forms of payment or just leaving somewhere which has better rewards.

On the other side what do you propose to do with people who cant/wont work. To you accept that they dont have a choice and should be afforded a level of comfort regardless of what they contribute to the country? And i dont mean people are the extreme end of the spectrum, more like theres only so many unsuccessful artists a country can support

Moving this outside of adjust our current tax system is an enourmous topic so how about some people put something on the line to discuss rather than taking cheap feel good shots from the sidelines.
[quote]
bob said:
how do you stop the people with ability leaving

Check out some very highly taxed countries which people are not rushing to exit any time soon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg
[quote]
This "leaving because the top personal tax rate is 38%" meme is just so weird.
Where are they leaving to? Australia? Top rate is 46% (IIRC), and the wealthy pay more of the tax there than here.
UK? 40% and about to have a 50% rate too by the looks of it.

So exactly why people think moving a top tax rate from already-lower-than to slightly-more-lower-than is going to solve anything is beyond me.
[quote]
Where did I say that? They can earn more overseas so it is attractive, increase take home incomes here and to some degree it will be more attractive to stay. Currently we have a shortage of doctors and specialists... I'm open to other ways to keep them? I am interested in how to stop people leaving if we have a very strongly socialist (central planned) economy which is where some people i have spoken to are coming from. If that is what someone believes please comment.

Onehappy:
quote:
The 'Personal rate' is the average rate of income tax for a worker on the average income in that country.

Note Personal rate is calculated using the combined central and sub-central government income tax plus employee and employer social security contribution taxes, as a percentage of labour costs defined as gross wage earnings plus employer social security contributions. The tax wedge includes cash transfers.
All that graph is saying is that people at the average income pay 21%. Germany is at the top of that chart but have a look at their rates through the incomes - including a massive social welfare and health care system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ESt-Steuersatz-GB.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany
Youll also note Germany company tax is 14%.

GDub - yes 45% on income over AUS$180K. At 180K the effective tax rate is 31% (down from 32% previously).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_New_Zealand
A NZer earning about the same will pay around 32~33%
A NZer on about 80K will pay a slightly higher overall rate than in Aus (~2% more) but that doesnt factor the difference in living costs or salary rates.
Aus has a lower GST rate

I'm not really interested in arguing the specifics of the relative tax structures more the idea of making NZ gain wealth as a country and increase our standard of living.

So how about the rest of what I said? As it applies to NZ and the majority of NZers (ie in the realm of possibility of a NZ govt).
[quote]
Also, from the treasury website:

Example 3: Combined income couple with three children under 13 Annual gross income from salary or wage $80,000
Annual tax liability $14,660
Working for Families tax credits $5,210
Net tax credit $9,450
Annual net income $70,550

=~12% tax. if it was a single 50k income with 3 kids under 13 it would be ~3.5% tax.
[quote]
bob said:
Personally I'd love to see all the trusts created become pointless through the alignment of the rates on all of the income/ wealth vehicles. I would also like to see doctors and other professionals rewarded *somewhat* for sticking around in NZ.

I like that and this:
bob daktari said:
if people move simply cause they can earn more somehwere else there is little in a tax regime that will keep them here - unless the system is heavily skewed towards them paying fuck all tax which isn't perhaps in the countries best interests


Basically lets stop dreaming that minor changes to the personal tax rates will have any impact, and lets just make sure that they are non-distortionary and then be a little more direct in our incentives for keeping skills absolutely core to provision of our public services.
[quote]
@Bob: Where I come from they use legal means that forces you to stay in the country and serve in your profession for longer before you are properly certified/licensed in your field of work. For instance, making general residencies for medical practitioners (non-specialists) a minimum of 7-10 years.

In saying that, however, we also had really low tax rates. The first $24K of income isn’t taxed and I think the top rate is 25%. There was previously no tax on work benefits (like Cars or 0% home loans) and there’s still no form of value-added tax in any shape or form, although that’s currently being proposed.

However, there are also high social security contribution rates from both employees and employers, 11% and 12%, respectively. From memory, this is tax free and stands at about NZD$140 billion currently. The fund is guaranteed by the government.

Social welfare is minimal, mostly focused in undergrad education (free) and health (heavily subsidised), and where it is available its allocation is racially biased.

As to where the government gets its money to fund its super-infrastructure projects and what nots… well, they simply fully control all the corporations that control all national resources and public services (like electricity, telecommunciations and some national broadcasters) and have many other public-private partnerships which transfer all their profits into the government coffers… the biggest of the lot being petroleum.

So the short of it is, yeah you can have really low tax rates and maintain big spending if you've got that kind of luxury... but eventually even that will run out. For one, skilled people are already leaving the country anyway. *wink*
[quote]
G-Dub said:
bob said:
Personally I'd love to see all the trusts created become pointless through the alignment of the rates on all of the income/ wealth vehicles. I would also like to see doctors and other professionals rewarded *somewhat* for sticking around in NZ.

I like that and this:
bob daktari said:
if people move simply cause they can earn more somehwere else there is little in a tax regime that will keep them here - unless the system is heavily skewed towards them paying fuck all tax which isn't perhaps in the countries best interests


Basically lets stop dreaming that minor changes to the personal tax rates will have any impact, and lets just make sure that they are non-distortionary and then be a little more direct in our incentives for keeping skills absolutely core to provision of our public services.


I've been thinking the same this whole time. Minor dicking around to the tax system won't do shit to someone who sees wages 25%+ higher offshore. Let alone the type of people (mainly ICT) who can actually hit an earning ceiling in this country because our "enterprise" corporates simply don't have the scale that corporates reach offshore. Networking guys would be an example - once you've worked at a couple of the ISP's and a few of the telcos, there's nowhere else to go other than sideways.
[quote]
Re: people bailing overseas. There's another element which is often forgotten about this - the who bails aspect? The people who do are not an average snapshot of the population, not even of kiwi families. The people who leave are slanted heavily towards being single, and between 25 and 40 years old. I.e. they are the most productive people in the country (relative to the liabilities) and thus the very worst people for the economy to lose.

This leaves the lesser productive people - the young and old - at an even less advantaged position long-term as their existence is effectively maintained by large contributions of the higher productivity group - the exact people who have the most reason to leave NZ. This is why, in addition to specialists like doctors/scientists aside, losing any people in their 'prime' long- or even medium-term is such a double hit to NZ.

I know a few people - single or young couples in the early 30s who have pretty reasonable jobs who have said that a rise in GST will probably be the last straw that inspires them move to Aus if they don't get compensated at least 1 for 1. For all the talk of compensation for a GST rise there will be certain groups - almost always including the struggling middle-men - who end up worse off. NZ simply doesn't a good enough life to offset living through policy after policy which add tiny lumps of additional pain to the most productive broad group in our economy.
[quote]
Yeah im prepared to agree that dropping the highest tax rate wont do heaps to keep people here. Maybe in the context of a rise in GST it is even for most people?

Anything else people want to speak up on? One happy, youve said sfa?
[quote]
wouldnt a drop in the lower tax rate also give a tax cut to those on a higher rate? because the first $x of everybodies income is taxed at the lowest rate?

[quote]
Fiddling with numbers aint going to do shit I agree.

The only thing that will get NZ out of its hole to is to invest heavily in sceniece and technology and become a world leaders in at least one or two profitable markets of the future. The govt needs to be looking ahead 20 years and saying what can we excel at? where is the money to be made? and how do we get there?

Fuk fibre to the home most people don't need this right now fibre to the business on the other hand should be a top priority.

Show some fuking vision and leadership for once National.
[quote]
One interesting thing about this GST rise thing is the likelihood that retailers will not raise prices to account for the GST rise but use it as a chance to bump prices up further... So as to avoid the potential for bad press over this have some been raising the prices already to make it a two-step rise??

I noticed at Countdown where I shop that a number of items have gone up quite noticeably
- Standard muffins went from 89c to $1 last week. (a 12% price rise)
- Deli meat (shaved beef) is always around $19.90/kg - suddenly it's now always $22.00/kg (a 10% price rise)

Come GST raising time are they going to bump prices again or mock us with some sort of "on many items we have absorbed the extra 2.5%" line?
[quote]
Margins have generally eroded for the past 2 years while cost pressure has gone up. Building industry in particular are forecasting price rises on pretty much everything. So its not like theres gouging going on. 2.5% is sfa on things other than commodities.
[quote]
Many FMCG items have gone up steadily in the past 2 years. Have you seen the price of weet-bix? It's gone up about a dollar for a 750gm box in about 18 months. (sure they do specials all the time but the rack rate has climbed...). FMCG margins don't get eroded, they get bumped within days of price rises generally. From what I read somewhere, their margins have steadily gotten higher, not lower.

Point being, any claims of people being equitably compensated in personal tax changes are false since companies will take the opp to jump an unnatural amount. Price pressures always exist - the desire to have bigger margins always exists - but this will be a case of many family shopping bills going up by 10%, not 2.5%.
[quote]
bob said:
2.5% is sfa

Yeah, its just a bit more than 0%.

Very Happy

Apparently there was significant price gouging when the Euro was introduced. Apparently, I didn't see it myself.
[quote]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10644610

Cheaper meat and vegetables pushed down food prices in April to levels not seen since late 2009.

Food prices fell 0.5 per cent last month from March, according to Statistics New Zealand's Food Price Index, with a 2.6 per cent decline in meat, poultry and fish prices, and a 1.7 per cent fall in fruit and vegetable prices.

The biggest contributors were cheaper chicken, down 4.7 per cent, a 36 per cent drop in kiwifruit prices, and a decline of 9.5 per cent for coffee.

The biggest increases in prices were a 1.9 per cent gain in soft drinks, snack foods up 4.1 per cent and strawberries recording a gain of 22 per cent.
[quote]
wow thats like what 4 or 5 months?
[quote]
Like clockwork they have these sort of articles. I notice they don't put stuff like grains, flour, bread etc - stuff which seems to have been creeping up and up.