Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite Services.tax dodging.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, accused of
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, accused of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both senses.
People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just do like paying
tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes goes to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle in the House. House cleaning etc.
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite
Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, accused
of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both senses.
People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just do like paying
tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes goes
to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle in the
House. House cleaning etc.
And I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget every
year where they show where the money is going
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite Services.tax dodging.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, accused of
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
george152 wrote:
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite
Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, accused >>>> of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both senses.
People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just do like paying >>> tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes goes >>> to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle in the
House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill defined. To >me it means that people pay for services they use and not for services they >don't. Others think "fair" means that those that earn more should pay >proportionally more. Then again some think that "fair" means that what >someone has left at the end of the day should be the same as everyone else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. Forcing people >to pay for things they don't use is not just. People should only pay for >things they and and not for things they don't.
And I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget every
year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a justice >system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else should (IMO) be >private. You could argue a utility in education and health being provided by >the state. Most definitely not arts funding, TV funding and various other >dubious departments.
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:41:03 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
george152 wrote:
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite
Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn,
accused of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both senses. >>>> People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just do like
paying tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes
goes to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle in >>>> the House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill defined.
To me it means that people pay for services they use and not for services >>they don't. Others think "fair" means that those that earn more should pay >>proportionally more. Then again some think that "fair" means that what >>someone has left at the end of the day should be the same as everyone
else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. Forcing >>people to pay for things they don't use is not just. People should only
pay for things they and and not for things they don't.
On your definitions therefore there are no countries that represent capitalism or communism, there may be a counry that fits the "proportionaltely more"definition but I am not aware of one.
GST has been increased under the National party - that is regressive,
and certainly is not a "user-pays" tax
- it fits none fyour
categories. Our income tax does have progrssively higher rates for
different tranches of income, but is not proportional - and other
taxes reduce the etent of progressiveness.
You are correct however that different people see fairness in
different ways - New Zealand is a democracy and a government that does
not fairly represent the aggregate of views will over time lose
support.
It would be impossible to fund some "services" on a user-pay
basis, so you presumably either reject at least part of what you
believe "capitalism"requires, or you are happy with what you call a "socialist"government.
And I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget every
year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a justice >>system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else should (IMO)
be private. You could argue a utility in education and health being >>provided by the state. Most definitely not arts funding, TV funding and >>various other dubious departments.
Adequate communication is of course part of an informed democracy, and
vital for defence (including civil defence functions.
Your support for what you call socialism is noted.
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:41:03 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
george152 wrote:
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite
Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, accused >>>>> of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both senses. >>>> People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just do like paying >>>> tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes goes >>>> to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle in the
House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill defined. To >> me it means that people pay for services they use and not for services they >> don't. Others think "fair" means that those that earn more should pay
proportionally more. Then again some think that "fair" means that what
someone has left at the end of the day should be the same as everyone else. >>
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. Forcing people >> to pay for things they don't use is not just. People should only pay for
things they and and not for things they don't.
On your definitions therefore there are no countries that represent capitalism or communism, there may be a counry that fits the "proportionaltely more"definition but I am not aware of one.
GST has been increased under the National party - that is regressive,
and certainly is not a "user-pays" tax - it fits none fyour
categories. Our income tax does have progrssively higher rates for
different tranches of income, but is not proportional - and other
taxes reduce the etent of progressiveness.
You are correct however that different people see fairness in
different ways - New Zealand is a democracy and a government that does
not fairly represent the aggregate of views will over time lose
support. It would be impossible to fund some "services" on a user-pay
basis, so you presumably either reject at least part of what you
believe "capitalism"requires, or you are happy with what you call a "socialist"government.
And I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget every
year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a justice
system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else should (IMO) be >> private. You could argue a utility in education and health being provided by >> the state. Most definitely not arts funding, TV funding and various other
dubious departments.
Adequate communication is of course part of an informed democracy, and
vital for defence (including civil defence functions. Your support for
what you call socialism is noted.
Rich80105 wrote:I agree with all those eminent economists who all agree that GST is
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:41:03 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
george152 wrote:
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite
Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn,
accused of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both senses. >>>>> People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just do like
paying tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes
goes to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle in >>>>> the House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill defined. >>>To me it means that people pay for services they use and not for services >>>they don't. Others think "fair" means that those that earn more should pay >>>proportionally more. Then again some think that "fair" means that what >>>someone has left at the end of the day should be the same as everyone >>>else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. Forcing >>>people to pay for things they don't use is not just. People should only >>>pay for things they and and not for things they don't.
On your definitions therefore there are no countries that represent
capitalism or communism, there may be a counry that fits the
"proportionaltely more"definition but I am not aware of one.
New Zealand fits the middle definition, as anyone who knows how our income >tax system works would know.
GST has been increased under the National party - that is regressive,
and certainly is not a "user-pays" tax
It's progressive as those that have more discretionary spending pay a higher >proportion of it as GST. That's because neither rent nor mortgages accrue >GST.
- it fits none fyour
categories. Our income tax does have progrssively higher rates for
different tranches of income, but is not proportional - and other
taxes reduce the extent of progressiveness.
If you consider that the majority of low earners pay no net tax then it's >easy to see that it's very progressive indeed.
I know this is old, but it's relevant:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png
You are correct however that different people see fairness in
different ways - New Zealand is a democracy and a government that does
not fairly represent the aggregate of views will over time lose
support.
Democracy should not give one person the right to say what happens to
another person's private property.
It would be impossible to fund some "services" on a user-pay
basis, so you presumably either reject at least part of what you
believe "capitalism"requires, or you are happy with what you call a
"socialist"government.
Which services (other than those I mentioned) would be impossible to fund on >a user pays basis?
And I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget every
year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a justice >>>system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else should (IMO) >>>be private. You could argue a utility in education and health being >>>provided by the state. Most definitely not arts funding, TV funding and >>>various other dubious departments.
Adequate communication is of course part of an informed democracy, and
vital for defence (including civil defence functions.
Adequate communication doesn't lead to Shortland Street or any of the other >publicly funded programmes. The government does not need to fund any >entertainment in order to have a functioning civil defense system.
Your support for what you call socialism is noted.
As is your continued dishonesty.
Yup. Socialism not the marxism you so regularly advocate should replace
the current government.
Pooh
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:34:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:41:03 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
george152 wrote:
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite
Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn,
accused of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both
senses. People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just do >>>>>> like paying tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes >>>>>> goes to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle >>>>>> in the House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill defined. >>>>To me it means that people pay for services they use and not for >>>>services they don't. Others think "fair" means that those that earn more >>>>should pay proportionally more. Then again some think that "fair" means >>>>that what someone has left at the end of the day should be the same as >>>>everyone else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. Forcing >>>>people to pay for things they don't use is not just. People should only >>>>pay for things they and and not for things they don't.
On your definitions therefore there are no countries that represent
capitalism or communism, there may be a counry that fits the
"proportionaltely more"definition but I am not aware of one.
New Zealand fits the middle definition, as anyone who knows how our income >>tax system works would know.
GST has been increased under the National party - that is regressive,
and certainly is not a "user-pays" tax
It's progressive as those that have more discretionary spending pay a >>higher proportion of it as GST. That's because neither rent nor mortgages >>accrue GST.
I agree with all those eminent economists who all agree that GST is regressive - can you provide any support for your view?
- it fits none fyour
categories. Our income tax does have progrssively higher rates for
different tranches of income, but is not proportional - and other
taxes reduce the extent of progressiveness.
If you consider that the majority of low earners pay no net tax then it's >>easy to see that it's very progressive indeed.
You have been conned - see below.
I know this is old, but it's relevant:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png
And as has been pointed out before, that table does not include all
taxes (notably missing GST but also others); it "allocates" what are eupheistacally called "transfers" to groups without any explanation or justification, and conveniently ignorews the reality that yhthe
highest perentages of tax as a percentage of total income are incurred
by middle income earners, not the wealthy.
It is Nat-spin from the Farrar spinmeister - just not believeable.
You are correct however that different people see fairness in
different ways - New Zealand is a democracy and a government that does
not fairly represent the aggregate of views will over time lose
support.
Democracy should not give one person the right to say what happens to >>another person's private property.
And it does not - it gives that right to a majority of our elected representatives.
It would be impossible to fund some "services" on a user-pay
basis, so you presumably either reject at least part of what you
believe "capitalism"requires, or you are happy with what you call a
"socialist"government.
Which services (other than those I mentioned) would be impossible to fund >>on a user pays basis?
And I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget every >>>>> year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a >>>>justice system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else >>>>should (IMO) be private. You could argue a utility in education and >>>>health being provided by the state. Most definitely not arts funding, TV >>>>funding and various other dubious departments.
Adequate communication is of course part of an informed democracy, and
vital for defence (including civil defence functions.
Adequate communication doesn't lead to Shortland Street or any of the
other publicly funded programmes. The government does not need to fund any >>entertainment in order to have a functioning civil defense system.
So who are the ""users" for user-pay levies for: Foreign Affairs
(including the millions paid to a Saudi businessman), Dept of
Conservation, Dept of Environment, Reserve Bank, Treasury, DPM&C, The
Speaker (including parliamentary costs), the Ombudsman, the Commerce Commission, Inland Revenue, Housing Coporation, Transport Agency,
CERA, Ministry of Ag & Fish,government support for many charities . .
.
Your support for what you call socialism is noted.
As is your continued dishonesty.
Aah - the last resort of those with a failing argument - dishonestly
attack your opponent. Where have I been dishonest?
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:34:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:41:03 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
george152 wrote:
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite >>>>>>>> Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, >>>>>>>> accused of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both
senses. People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just do >>>>>>> like paying tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes >>>>>>> goes to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle >>>>>>> in the House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill defined. >>>>> To me it means that people pay for services they use and not for
services they don't. Others think "fair" means that those that earn more >>>>> should pay proportionally more. Then again some think that "fair" means >>>>> that what someone has left at the end of the day should be the same as >>>>> everyone else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. Forcing >>>>> people to pay for things they don't use is not just. People should only >>>>> pay for things they and and not for things they don't.
On your definitions therefore there are no countries that represent
capitalism or communism, there may be a counry that fits the
"proportionaltely more"definition but I am not aware of one.
New Zealand fits the middle definition, as anyone who knows how our income >>> tax system works would know.
GST has been increased under the National party - that is regressive,
and certainly is not a "user-pays" tax
It's progressive as those that have more discretionary spending pay a
higher proportion of it as GST. That's because neither rent nor mortgages >>> accrue GST.
I agree with all those eminent economists who all agree that GST is
regressive - can you provide any support for your view?
Evidence of the progressive nature of GST has been provided to you many
times before. Economists that say it's regressive are being very flexible with their definitions. It's progressive because those who earn more tend to pay a higher proportion of their income as GST because a higher proportion
of what they spend their money on attracts GST.
- it fits none fyour
categories. Our income tax does have progrssively higher rates for
different tranches of income, but is not proportional - and other
taxes reduce the extent of progressiveness.
If you consider that the majority of low earners pay no net tax then it's >>> easy to see that it's very progressive indeed.
You have been conned - see below.
I know this is old, but it's relevant:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png
And as has been pointed out before, that table does not include all
taxes (notably missing GST but also others); it "allocates" what are
eupheistacally called "transfers" to groups without any explanation or
justification, and conveniently ignorews the reality that yhthe
highest perentages of tax as a percentage of total income are incurred
by middle income earners, not the wealthy.
It is Nat-spin from the Farrar spinmeister - just not believeable.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81429047/Small-number-of-taxpayers-bear-the-brunt-of-New-Zealand-tax-bill
Quote:
Households earning less than $50,000 receive more in credits than they pay
in direct income tax by about a third.
By comparison, the top 3 per cent of individual income earners, earning more than $150,000 a year, pay 24 per cent of all tax received.
End quote.
You are correct however that different people see fairness in
different ways - New Zealand is a democracy and a government that does >>>> not fairly represent the aggregate of views will over time lose
support.
Democracy should not give one person the right to say what happens to
another person's private property.
And it does not - it gives that right to a majority of our elected
representatives.
A right no person should have.
It would be impossible to fund some "services" on a user-pay
basis, so you presumably either reject at least part of what you
believe "capitalism"requires, or you are happy with what you call a
"socialist"government.
Which services (other than those I mentioned) would be impossible to fund >>> on a user pays basis?
And I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget every >>>>>> year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a
justice system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else
should (IMO) be private. You could argue a utility in education and
health being provided by the state. Most definitely not arts funding, TV >>>>> funding and various other dubious departments.
Adequate communication is of course part of an informed democracy, and >>>> vital for defence (including civil defence functions.
Adequate communication doesn't lead to Shortland Street or any of the
other publicly funded programmes. The government does not need to fund any >>> entertainment in order to have a functioning civil defense system.
So who are the ""users" for user-pay levies for: Foreign Affairs
(including the millions paid to a Saudi businessman), Dept of
Conservation, Dept of Environment, Reserve Bank, Treasury, DPM&C, The
Speaker (including parliamentary costs), the Ombudsman, the Commerce
Commission, Inland Revenue, Housing Coporation, Transport Agency,
CERA, Ministry of Ag & Fish,government support for many charities . .
.
Many of those are a core function of government. For others it's direct
users (e.g. DoC and Ag & Fish are those that enjoy the land/sea, Housing
Corp shouldn't be a government agency. Transport Agency should be a department of the organisation that owns and maintains roads.
The government shouldn't support charities, they should tax people less and allow them to support those charities.
Religious organisations should not be considered a charity (spreading unthruths and lying to children is not charitable).
Your support for what you call socialism is noted.
As is your continued dishonesty.
Aah - the last resort of those with a failing argument - dishonestly
attack your opponent. Where have I been dishonest?
In saying that I support socialism. Attributing a position to someone that they do not hold is very dishonest.
Rich80105 wrote:And no person has that right as far as setting laws. Once a law is
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:34:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:41:03 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
george152 wrote:
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite >>>>>>>> Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, >>>>>>>> accused of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both
senses. People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just do >>>>>>> like paying tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes >>>>>>> goes to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle >>>>>>> in the House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill defined. >>>>>To me it means that people pay for services they use and not for >>>>>services they don't. Others think "fair" means that those that earn more >>>>>should pay proportionally more. Then again some think that "fair" means >>>>>that what someone has left at the end of the day should be the same as >>>>>everyone else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. Forcing >>>>>people to pay for things they don't use is not just. People should only >>>>>pay for things they and and not for things they don't.
On your definitions therefore there are no countries that represent
capitalism or communism, there may be a counry that fits the
"proportionaltely more"definition but I am not aware of one.
New Zealand fits the middle definition, as anyone who knows how our income >>>tax system works would know.
GST has been increased under the National party - that is regressive,
and certainly is not a "user-pays" tax
It's progressive as those that have more discretionary spending pay a >>>higher proportion of it as GST. That's because neither rent nor mortgages >>>accrue GST.
I agree with all those eminent economists who all agree that GST is
regressive - can you provide any support for your view?
Evidence of the progressive nature of GST has been provided to you many
times before. Economists that say it's regressive are being very flexible >with their definitions. It's progressive because those who earn more tend to >pay a higher proportion of their income as GST because a higher proportion
of what they spend their money on attracts GST.
- it fits none fyour
categories. Our income tax does have progrssively higher rates for
different tranches of income, but is not proportional - and other
taxes reduce the extent of progressiveness.
If you consider that the majority of low earners pay no net tax then it's >>>easy to see that it's very progressive indeed.
You have been conned - see below.
I know this is old, but it's relevant:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png
And as has been pointed out before, that table does not include all
taxes (notably missing GST but also others); it "allocates" what are
eupheistacally called "transfers" to groups without any explanation or
justification, and conveniently ignorews the reality that yhthe
highest perentages of tax as a percentage of total income are incurred
by middle income earners, not the wealthy.
It is Nat-spin from the Farrar spinmeister - just not believeable.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81429047/Small-number-of-taxpayers-bear-the-brunt-of-New-Zealand-tax-bill
Quote:
Households earning less than $50,000 receive more in credits than they pay
in direct income tax by about a third.
By comparison, the top 3 per cent of individual income earners, earning more >than $150,000 a year, pay 24 per cent of all tax received.
End quote.
You are correct however that different people see fairness in
different ways - New Zealand is a democracy and a government that does >>>> not fairly represent the aggregate of views will over time lose
support.
Democracy should not give one person the right to say what happens to >>>another person's private property.
And it does not - it gives that right to a majority of our elected
representatives.
A right no person should have.
It would be impossible to fund some "services" on a user-pay
basis, so you presumably either reject at least part of what you
believe "capitalism"requires, or you are happy with what you call a
"socialist"government.
Which services (other than those I mentioned) would be impossible to fund >>>on a user pays basis?
And I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget every >>>>>> year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a >>>>>justice system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else >>>>>should (IMO) be private. You could argue a utility in education and >>>>>health being provided by the state. Most definitely not arts funding, TV >>>>>funding and various other dubious departments.
Adequate communication is of course part of an informed democracy, and >>>> vital for defence (including civil defence functions.
Adequate communication doesn't lead to Shortland Street or any of the >>>other publicly funded programmes. The government does not need to fund any >>>entertainment in order to have a functioning civil defense system.
So who are the ""users" for user-pay levies for: Foreign Affairs
(including the millions paid to a Saudi businessman), Dept of
Conservation, Dept of Environment, Reserve Bank, Treasury, DPM&C, The
Speaker (including parliamentary costs), the Ombudsman, the Commerce
Commission, Inland Revenue, Housing Coporation, Transport Agency,
CERA, Ministry of Ag & Fish,government support for many charities . .
.
Many of those are a core function of government. For others it's direct
users (e.g. DoC and Ag & Fish are those that enjoy the land/sea, Housing
Corp shouldn't be a government agency. Transport Agency should be a >department of the organisation that owns and maintains roads.
The government shouldn't support charities, they should tax people less and >allow them to support those charities.
Religious organisations should not be considered a charity (spreading >unthruths and lying to children is not charitable).
Your support for what you call socialism is noted.
As is your continued dishonesty.
Aah - the last resort of those with a failing argument - dishonestly
attack your opponent. Where have I been dishonest?
In saying that I support socialism. Attributing a position to someone that >they do not hold is very dishonest.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 08:56:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:34:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:41:03 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
george152 wrote:
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite >>>>>>>>> Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, >>>>>>>>> accused of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both >>>>>>>> senses. People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just >>>>>>>> do like paying tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes >>>>>>>> goes to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle >>>>>>>> in the House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill >>>>>>defined. To me it means that people pay for services they use and not >>>>>>for services they don't. Others think "fair" means that those that >>>>>>earn more should pay proportionally more. Then again some think that >>>>>>"fair" means that what someone has left at the end of the day should >>>>>>be the same as everyone else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. Forcing >>>>>>people to pay for things they don't use is not just. People should >>>>>>only pay for things they and and not for things they don't.
On your definitions therefore there are no countries that represent
capitalism or communism, there may be a counry that fits the
"proportionaltely more"definition but I am not aware of one.
New Zealand fits the middle definition, as anyone who knows how our >>>>income tax system works would know.
GST has been increased under the National party - that is regressive, >>>>> and certainly is not a "user-pays" tax
It's progressive as those that have more discretionary spending pay a >>>>higher proportion of it as GST. That's because neither rent nor >>>>mortgages accrue GST.
I agree with all those eminent economists who all agree that GST is
regressive - can you provide any support for your view?
Evidence of the progressive nature of GST has been provided to you many >>times before. Economists that say it's regressive are being very flexible >>with their definitions. It's progressive because those who earn more tend >>to pay a higher proportion of their income as GST because a higher >>proportion of what they spend their money on attracts GST.
- it fits none fyour
categories. Our income tax does have progrssively higher rates for
different tranches of income, but is not proportional - and other
taxes reduce the extent of progressiveness.
If you consider that the majority of low earners pay no net tax then >>>>it's easy to see that it's very progressive indeed.
You have been conned - see below.
I know this is old, but it's relevant:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png
And as has been pointed out before, that table does not include all
taxes (notably missing GST but also others); it "allocates" what are
eupheistacally called "transfers" to groups without any explanation or
justification, and conveniently ignorews the reality that yhthe
highest perentages of tax as a percentage of total income are incurred
by middle income earners, not the wealthy.
It is Nat-spin from the Farrar spinmeister - just not believeable.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81429047/Small-number-of-taxpayers-bear-the-brunt-of-New-Zealand-tax-bill
Quote:
Households earning less than $50,000 receive more in credits than they pay >>in direct income tax by about a third.
By comparison, the top 3 per cent of individual income earners, earning >>more than $150,000 a year, pay 24 per cent of all tax received.
End quote.
You are correct however that different people see fairness in
different ways - New Zealand is a democracy and a government that does >>>>> not fairly represent the aggregate of views will over time lose
support.
Democracy should not give one person the right to say what happens to >>>>another person's private property.
And it does not - it gives that right to a majority of our elected
representatives.
A right no person should have.
And no person has that right as far as setting laws. Once a law is
passed, teh justice system can require certain things to happen to
another persons private property - are you saying you disagree with a
judge imposing a fine for example, Allistar?.
It would be impossible to fund some "services" on a user-pay
basis, so you presumably either reject at least part of what you
believe "capitalism"requires, or you are happy with what you call a
"socialist"government.
Which services (other than those I mentioned) would be impossible to >>>>fund on a user pays basis?
And I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget
every year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a >>>>>>justice system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else >>>>>>should (IMO) be private. You could argue a utility in education and >>>>>>health being provided by the state. Most definitely not arts funding, >>>>>>TV funding and various other dubious departments.
Adequate communication is of course part of an informed democracy, and >>>>> vital for defence (including civil defence functions.
Adequate communication doesn't lead to Shortland Street or any of the >>>>other publicly funded programmes. The government does not need to fund >>>>any entertainment in order to have a functioning civil defense system.
So who are the ""users" for user-pay levies for: Foreign Affairs
(including the millions paid to a Saudi businessman), Dept of
Conservation, Dept of Environment, Reserve Bank, Treasury, DPM&C, The
Speaker (including parliamentary costs), the Ombudsman, the Commerce
Commission, Inland Revenue, Housing Coporation, Transport Agency,
CERA, Ministry of Ag & Fish,government support for many charities . .
.
Many of those are a core function of government. For others it's direct >>users (e.g. DoC and Ag & Fish are those that enjoy the land/sea, Housing >>Corp shouldn't be a government agency. Transport Agency should be a >>department of the organisation that owns and maintains roads.
The government shouldn't support charities, they should tax people less
and allow them to support those charities.
Religious organisations should not be considered a charity (spreading >>unthruths and lying to children is not charitable).
Your support for what you call socialism is noted.
As is your continued dishonesty.
Aah - the last resort of those with a failing argument - dishonestly
attack your opponent. Where have I been dishonest?
In saying that I support socialism. Attributing a position to someone that >>they do not hold is very dishonest.
Your definition of socialism is not mine, but based on your
statements, and your definition of socialism, it appears that you do
support socialism.
I said that capitalism as you define it does not
exist in any country currently - all countries have some part of their economy that is not subject to user-pays. You have said that you
support some aspects of government not being based on "user-pays" - by
your definition that is socialism.
If that is a misrepresentation of
your posistion perhaps you could explain which of your statements
above needs to be amended.
Of course it is possible that,
inadvertently, you were dishonest about your own beliefs, or what I
have said - if you still think I have been dishonest in this thread
then quote the words you believe demonstate that.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 08:56:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:34:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:41:03 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
george152 wrote:
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite >>>>>>>>>> Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, >>>>>>>>>> accused of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both >>>>>>>>> senses. People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just >>>>>>>>> do like paying tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes >>>>>>>>> goes to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle >>>>>>>>> in the House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill >>>>>>>defined. To me it means that people pay for services they use and not >>>>>>>for services they don't. Others think "fair" means that those that >>>>>>>earn more should pay proportionally more. Then again some think that >>>>>>>"fair" means that what someone has left at the end of the day should >>>>>>>be the same as everyone else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. Forcing >>>>>>>people to pay for things they don't use is not just. People should >>>>>>>only pay for things they and and not for things they don't.
On your definitions therefore there are no countries that represent >>>>>> capitalism or communism, there may be a counry that fits the
"proportionaltely more"definition but I am not aware of one.
New Zealand fits the middle definition, as anyone who knows how our >>>>>income tax system works would know.
GST has been increased under the National party - that is regressive, >>>>>> and certainly is not a "user-pays" tax
It's progressive as those that have more discretionary spending pay a >>>>>higher proportion of it as GST. That's because neither rent nor >>>>>mortgages accrue GST.
I agree with all those eminent economists who all agree that GST is
regressive - can you provide any support for your view?
Evidence of the progressive nature of GST has been provided to you many >>>times before. Economists that say it's regressive are being very flexible >>>with their definitions. It's progressive because those who earn more tend >>>to pay a higher proportion of their income as GST because a higher >>>proportion of what they spend their money on attracts GST.
- it fits none fyour
categories. Our income tax does have progrssively higher rates for >>>>>> different tranches of income, but is not proportional - and other
taxes reduce the extent of progressiveness.
If you consider that the majority of low earners pay no net tax then >>>>>it's easy to see that it's very progressive indeed.
You have been conned - see below.
I know this is old, but it's relevant:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png
And as has been pointed out before, that table does not include all
taxes (notably missing GST but also others); it "allocates" what are
eupheistacally called "transfers" to groups without any explanation or >>>> justification, and conveniently ignorews the reality that yhthe
highest perentages of tax as a percentage of total income are incurred >>>> by middle income earners, not the wealthy.
It is Nat-spin from the Farrar spinmeister - just not believeable.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81429047/Small-number-of-taxpayers-bear-the-brunt-of-New-Zealand-tax-bill
Quote:
Households earning less than $50,000 receive more in credits than they pay >>>in direct income tax by about a third.
By comparison, the top 3 per cent of individual income earners, earning >>>more than $150,000 a year, pay 24 per cent of all tax received.
End quote.
No comment? It's plain mathematics that a small proportion of top earners
pay far more of the tax take than a much larger proportion of lower earners.
You are correct however that different people see fairness in
different ways - New Zealand is a democracy and a government that does >>>>>> not fairly represent the aggregate of views will over time lose
support.
Democracy should not give one person the right to say what happens to >>>>>another person's private property.
And it does not - it gives that right to a majority of our elected
representatives.
A right no person should have.
And no person has that right as far as setting laws. Once a law is
passed, teh justice system can require certain things to happen to
another persons private property - are you saying you disagree with a
judge imposing a fine for example, Allistar?.
There is a big difference between fining someone for breaking the law and >confiscating their property when they have otherwise done no wrong.
No person should have the right to take another person's property other than >for payment of services or as a fine.
It would be impossible to fund some "services" on a user-pay
basis, so you presumably either reject at least part of what you
believe "capitalism"requires, or you are happy with what you call a >>>>>> "socialist"government.
Which services (other than those I mentioned) would be impossible to >>>>>fund on a user pays basis?
No answer?
So who are the ""users" for user-pay levies for: Foreign AffairsAnd I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget >>>>>>>> every year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a >>>>>>>justice system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else >>>>>>>should (IMO) be private. You could argue a utility in education and >>>>>>>health being provided by the state. Most definitely not arts funding, >>>>>>>TV funding and various other dubious departments.
Adequate communication is of course part of an informed democracy, and >>>>>> vital for defence (including civil defence functions.
Adequate communication doesn't lead to Shortland Street or any of the >>>>>other publicly funded programmes. The government does not need to fund >>>>>any entertainment in order to have a functioning civil defense system. >>>>
(including the millions paid to a Saudi businessman), Dept of
Conservation, Dept of Environment, Reserve Bank, Treasury, DPM&C, The
Speaker (including parliamentary costs), the Ombudsman, the Commerce
Commission, Inland Revenue, Housing Coporation, Transport Agency,
CERA, Ministry of Ag & Fish,government support for many charities . .
.
Many of those are a core function of government. For others it's direct >>>users (e.g. DoC and Ag & Fish are those that enjoy the land/sea, Housing >>>Corp shouldn't be a government agency. Transport Agency should be a >>>department of the organisation that owns and maintains roads.
The government shouldn't support charities, they should tax people less >>>and allow them to support those charities.
That is your opinion; they (and our representatives in parliament)
Religious organisations should not be considered a charity (spreading >>>unthruths and lying to children is not charitable).
See above where you said:
Your support for what you call socialism is noted.
As is your continued dishonesty.
Aah - the last resort of those with a failing argument - dishonestly
attack your opponent. Where have I been dishonest?
In saying that I support socialism. Attributing a position to someone that >>>they do not hold is very dishonest.
Your definition of socialism is not mine, but based on your
statements, and your definition of socialism, it appears that you do
support socialism.
I don't recall giving a definition of socialism.
"Many of those are a core function of government." - your response toI said that capitalism as you define it does not
exist in any country currently - all countries have some part of their
economy that is not subject to user-pays. You have said that you
support some aspects of government not being based on "user-pays" - by
your definition that is socialism.
What do I support not being based on user pays?
Indeed nor should you. I'm just asking about your own statements -If that is a misrepresentation of
your posistion perhaps you could explain which of your statements
above needs to be amended.
I am not going to alter strawman statements you've constructed.
Is that what you call a strawman statement? Guilt by accusation fromOf course it is possible that,
inadvertently, you were dishonest about your own beliefs, or what I
have said - if you still think I have been dishonest in this thread
then quote the words you believe demonstate that.
You are dishonest in most threads Rich, that's well known by many that read >these groups.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 09:01:28 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 08:56:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:34:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:41:03 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
george152 wrote:On your definitions therefore there are no countries that represent >>>>>>> capitalism or communism, there may be a counry that fits the
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite >>>>>>>>>>> Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, >>>>>>>>>>> accused of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both >>>>>>>>>> senses. People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just >>>>>>>>>> do like paying tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our >>>>>>>>>> taxes goes to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid >>>>>>>>>> to waffle in the House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill >>>>>>>>defined. To me it means that people pay for services they use and >>>>>>>>not for services they don't. Others think "fair" means that those >>>>>>>>that earn more should pay proportionally more. Then again some think >>>>>>>>that "fair" means that what someone has left at the end of the day >>>>>>>>should be the same as everyone else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. >>>>>>>>Forcing people to pay for things they don't use is not just. People >>>>>>>>should only pay for things they and and not for things they don't. >>>>>>>
"proportionaltely more"definition but I am not aware of one.
New Zealand fits the middle definition, as anyone who knows how our >>>>>>income tax system works would know.
GST has been increased under the National party - that is
regressive, and certainly is not a "user-pays" tax
It's progressive as those that have more discretionary spending pay a >>>>>>higher proportion of it as GST. That's because neither rent nor >>>>>>mortgages accrue GST.
I agree with all those eminent economists who all agree that GST is
regressive - can you provide any support for your view?
Evidence of the progressive nature of GST has been provided to you many >>>>times before. Economists that say it's regressive are being very >>>>flexible with their definitions. It's progressive because those who earn >>>>more tend to pay a higher proportion of their income as GST because a >>>>higher proportion of what they spend their money on attracts GST.
- it fits none fyour
categories. Our income tax does have progrssively higher rates for >>>>>>> different tranches of income, but is not proportional - and other >>>>>>> taxes reduce the extent of progressiveness.
If you consider that the majority of low earners pay no net tax then >>>>>>it's easy to see that it's very progressive indeed.
You have been conned - see below.
I know this is old, but it's relevant:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png
And as has been pointed out before, that table does not include all
taxes (notably missing GST but also others); it "allocates" what are >>>>> eupheistacally called "transfers" to groups without any explanation or >>>>> justification, and conveniently ignorews the reality that yhthe
highest perentages of tax as a percentage of total income are incurred >>>>> by middle income earners, not the wealthy.
It is Nat-spin from the Farrar spinmeister - just not believeable.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81429047/Small-number-of-taxpayers-bear-the-brunt-of-New-Zealand-tax-bill
Quote:
Households earning less than $50,000 receive more in credits than they >>>>pay in direct income tax by about a third.
By comparison, the top 3 per cent of individual income earners, earning >>>>more than $150,000 a year, pay 24 per cent of all tax received.
End quote.
No comment? It's plain mathematics that a small proportion of top earners >>pay far more of the tax take than a much larger proportion of lower >>earners.
Its not true of course - it ignores company tax, tax on trusts, GST,
excise tax, plus probably some others, and does not reflect the
reality that taxable income is further from total income for that
group than for the low and middle-earners. I did comment on it: "It
is Nat-spin from the Farrar spinmeister - just not believeable."
You are correct however that different people see fairness in
different ways - New Zealand is a democracy and a government that >>>>>>> does not fairly represent the aggregate of views will over time lose >>>>>>> support.
Democracy should not give one person the right to say what happens to >>>>>>another person's private property.
And it does not - it gives that right to a majority of our elected
representatives.
A right no person should have.
And no person has that right as far as setting laws. Once a law is
passed, teh justice system can require certain things to happen to
another persons private property - are you saying you disagree with a
judge imposing a fine for example, Allistar?.
There is a big difference between fining someone for breaking the law and >>confiscating their property when they have otherwise done no wrong.
Perhaps it would help to have an example. Do you mean something like
McCully giving away millions of taxpayer money to a Saudi
'businessman' under a service contract where New Zealand received no
benefit? That rort was approved by the National cabinet.
Give an example.
No person should have the right to take another person's property other >>than for payment of services or as a fine.
It would be impossible to fund some "services" on a user-pay
basis, so you presumably either reject at least part of what you >>>>>>> believe "capitalism"requires, or you are happy with what you call a >>>>>>> "socialist"government.
Which services (other than those I mentioned) would be impossible to >>>>>>fund on a user pays basis?
No answer?
You confirmed that quite a few could not be funded on a user pays
basis. See below.
So who are the ""users" for user-pay levies for: Foreign AffairsAnd I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget >>>>>>>>> every year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a >>>>>>>>justice system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else >>>>>>>>should (IMO) be private. You could argue a utility in education and >>>>>>>>health being provided by the state. Most definitely not arts >>>>>>>>funding, TV funding and various other dubious departments.
Adequate communication is of course part of an informed democracy, >>>>>>> and vital for defence (including civil defence functions.
Adequate communication doesn't lead to Shortland Street or any of the >>>>>>other publicly funded programmes. The government does not need to fund >>>>>>any entertainment in order to have a functioning civil defense system. >>>>>
(including the millions paid to a Saudi businessman), Dept of
Conservation, Dept of Environment, Reserve Bank, Treasury, DPM&C, The >>>>> Speaker (including parliamentary costs), the Ombudsman, the Commerce >>>>> Commission, Inland Revenue, Housing Coporation, Transport Agency,
CERA, Ministry of Ag & Fish,government support for many charities . . >>>>> .
Many of those are a core function of government. For others it's direct >>>>users (e.g. DoC and Ag & Fish are those that enjoy the land/sea, Housing >>>>Corp shouldn't be a government agency. Transport Agency should be a >>>>department of the organisation that owns and maintains roads.
Since you raised the subject above, perhaps you could explain how DoC
and Ag and Fish could be funded by user levies . . .
The government does of course own and maintain the rods that the
Transport Agency is involved with, so I presume you have not problems
with that one.
The quality of road spending (led by political decisions by the
National -led government) is not always good of course: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/326111/cost-of-warkworth-to-wellsford-motorway-could-double
A return of 25c for each dollar invested may well of course be
acceptable crony capitalism to many of their supporters . . .
The government shouldn't support charities, they should tax people less >>>>and allow them to support those charities.
It looks as though the government is heading in your direction - they
are planning to exempt themselves from the privacy act and require
personal information from those assisted by charities: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/326040/rape-crisis-will-risk-funding-to-keep-data-private
(see also: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/325740/govt-on-shaky-ground-in-data-demand,-lawyers-say
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/325709/privacy-commission-investigates-data-for-funding-proposal
Religious organisations should not be considered a charity (spreading >>>>unthruths and lying to children is not charitable).
That is your opinion; they (and our representatives in parliament)
appear to have a different view. Why do you think your opinion should
hold sway over the majority?
Your support for what you call socialism is noted.
As is your continued dishonesty.
Aah - the last resort of those with a failing argument - dishonestly >>>>> attack your opponent. Where have I been dishonest?
In saying that I support socialism. Attributing a position to someone >>>>that they do not hold is very dishonest.
Your definition of socialism is not mine, but based on your
statements, and your definition of socialism, it appears that you do
support socialism.
I don't recall giving a definition of socialism.
See above where you said:
"We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill
defined. To me it means that people pay for services they use and not
for services they don't. Others think "fair" means that those that
earn more should pay proportionally more. Then again some think that
"fair" means that what someone has left at the end of the day should
be the same as everyone else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. "
You appear to support what you call "core government functions" being
funded through other than user pays.
I said that capitalism as you define it does not
exist in any country currently - all countries have some part of their
economy that is not subject to user-pays. You have said that you
support some aspects of government not being based on "user-pays" - by
your definition that is socialism.
What do I support not being based on user pays?
"Many of those are a core function of government." - your response to
asking how a variety of departements could be funded by user-pays.
If that is a misrepresentation of
your posistion perhaps you could explain which of your statements
above needs to be amended.
I am not going to alter strawman statements you've constructed.
Indeed nor should you. I'm just asking about your own statements -
unless of course you are now claiming some of them were strawman
statements?
Of course it is possible that,
inadvertently, you were dishonest about your own beliefs, or what I
have said - if you still think I have been dishonest in this thread
then quote the words you believe demonstate that.
You are dishonest in most threads Rich, that's well known by many that
read these groups.
Is that what you call a strawman statement? Guilt by accusation from
trolls? Stick to this thread and tell me where I have been dishonest
if you can/. Otherwise, you may wish to demostrate at least some
decemcy by apologising.
Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 09:01:28 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 08:56:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:34:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:41:03 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
george152 wrote:On your definitions therefore there are no countries that represent >>>>>>>> capitalism or communism, there may be a counry that fits the
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite >>>>>>>>>>>> Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, >>>>>>>>>>>> accused of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both >>>>>>>>>>> senses. People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just >>>>>>>>>>> do like paying tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our >>>>>>>>>>> taxes goes to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid >>>>>>>>>>> to waffle in the House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill >>>>>>>>>defined. To me it means that people pay for services they use and >>>>>>>>>not for services they don't. Others think "fair" means that those >>>>>>>>>that earn more should pay proportionally more. Then again some think >>>>>>>>>that "fair" means that what someone has left at the end of the day >>>>>>>>>should be the same as everyone else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. >>>>>>>>>Forcing people to pay for things they don't use is not just. People >>>>>>>>>should only pay for things they and and not for things they don't. >>>>>>>>
"proportionaltely more"definition but I am not aware of one.
New Zealand fits the middle definition, as anyone who knows how our >>>>>>>income tax system works would know.
GST has been increased under the National party - that is
regressive, and certainly is not a "user-pays" tax
It's progressive as those that have more discretionary spending pay a >>>>>>>higher proportion of it as GST. That's because neither rent nor >>>>>>>mortgages accrue GST.
I agree with all those eminent economists who all agree that GST is >>>>>> regressive - can you provide any support for your view?
Evidence of the progressive nature of GST has been provided to you many >>>>>times before. Economists that say it's regressive are being very >>>>>flexible with their definitions. It's progressive because those who earn >>>>>more tend to pay a higher proportion of their income as GST because a >>>>>higher proportion of what they spend their money on attracts GST.
- it fits none fyour
categories. Our income tax does have progrssively higher rates for >>>>>>>> different tranches of income, but is not proportional - and other >>>>>>>> taxes reduce the extent of progressiveness.
If you consider that the majority of low earners pay no net tax then >>>>>>>it's easy to see that it's very progressive indeed.
You have been conned - see below.
I know this is old, but it's relevant:And as has been pointed out before, that table does not include all >>>>>> taxes (notably missing GST but also others); it "allocates" what are >>>>>> eupheistacally called "transfers" to groups without any explanation or >>>>>> justification, and conveniently ignorews the reality that yhthe
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png >>>>>>
highest perentages of tax as a percentage of total income are incurred >>>>>> by middle income earners, not the wealthy.
It is Nat-spin from the Farrar spinmeister - just not believeable.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81429047/Small-number-of-taxpayers-bear-the-brunt-of-New-Zealand-tax-bill
Quote:
Households earning less than $50,000 receive more in credits than they >>>>>pay in direct income tax by about a third.
By comparison, the top 3 per cent of individual income earners, earning >>>>>more than $150,000 a year, pay 24 per cent of all tax received.
End quote.
No comment? It's plain mathematics that a small proportion of top earners >>>pay far more of the tax take than a much larger proportion of lower >>>earners.
Its not true of course - it ignores company tax, tax on trusts, GST,
excise tax, plus probably some others, and does not reflect the
reality that taxable income is further from total income for that
group than for the low and middle-earners. I did comment on it: "It
is Nat-spin from the Farrar spinmeister - just not believeable."
Of all of those taxes you mentioned they are paid more by the high earners >than the low earners. It is a fact that a small proportion of high earners >pay far more in absolute dollars terms than a higher proportion of lower >earners. It's basic mathematics. Even if the tax system were flat this would >be the case, the progressive nature of the tax system makes it even more so.
You are correct however that different people see fairness in
different ways - New Zealand is a democracy and a government that >>>>>>>> does not fairly represent the aggregate of views will over time lose >>>>>>>> support.
Democracy should not give one person the right to say what happens to >>>>>>>another person's private property.
And it does not - it gives that right to a majority of our elected >>>>>> representatives.
A right no person should have.
And no person has that right as far as setting laws. Once a law is
passed, the justice system can require certain things to happen to
another persons private property - are you saying you disagree with a
judge imposing a fine for example, Allistar?.
There is a big difference between fining someone for breaking the law and >>>confiscating their property when they have otherwise done no wrong.
Perhaps it would help to have an example. Do you mean something like
McCully giving away millions of taxpayer money to a Saudi
'businessman' under a service contract where New Zealand received no
benefit? That rort was approved by the National cabinet.
Give an example.
An example of people being forced to pay income tax? Is that what you're >asking? Oh dear.
Yeah right!. Many of their services to the nation cannot be chargedNo person should have the right to take another person's property other >>>than for payment of services or as a fine.
It would be impossible to fund some "services" on a user-pay
basis, so you presumably either reject at least part of what you >>>>>>>> believe "capitalism"requires, or you are happy with what you call a >>>>>>>> "socialist"government.
Which services (other than those I mentioned) would be impossible to >>>>>>>fund on a user pays basis?
No answer?
You confirmed that quite a few could not be funded on a user pays
basis. See below.
Which?
So who are the ""users" for user-pay levies for: Foreign AffairsAnd I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget >>>>>>>>>> every year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a >>>>>>>>>justice system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else >>>>>>>>>should (IMO) be private. You could argue a utility in education and >>>>>>>>>health being provided by the state. Most definitely not arts >>>>>>>>>funding, TV funding and various other dubious departments.
Adequate communication is of course part of an informed democracy, >>>>>>>> and vital for defence (including civil defence functions.
Adequate communication doesn't lead to Shortland Street or any of the >>>>>>>other publicly funded programmes. The government does not need to fund >>>>>>>any entertainment in order to have a functioning civil defense system. >>>>>>
(including the millions paid to a Saudi businessman), Dept of
Conservation, Dept of Environment, Reserve Bank, Treasury, DPM&C, The >>>>>> Speaker (including parliamentary costs), the Ombudsman, the Commerce >>>>>> Commission, Inland Revenue, Housing Coporation, Transport Agency,
CERA, Ministry of Ag & Fish,government support for many charities . . >>>>>> .
Many of those are a core function of government. For others it's direct >>>>>users (e.g. DoC and Ag & Fish are those that enjoy the land/sea, Housing >>>>>Corp shouldn't be a government agency. Transport Agency should be a >>>>>department of the organisation that owns and maintains roads.
Since you raised the subject above, perhaps you could explain how DoC
and Ag and Fish could be funded by user levies . . .
By charging fees for those using the services provided.
The government does of course own and maintain the rods that the
Transport Agency is involved with, so I presume you have not problems
with that one.
The quality of road spending (led by political decisions by the
National -led government) is not always good of course:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/326111/cost-of-warkworth-to-wellsford-motorway-could-double
A return of 25c for each dollar invested may well of course be
acceptable crony capitalism to many of their supporters . . .
The government shouldn't support charities, they should tax people less >>>>>and allow them to support those charities.
It looks as though the government is heading in your direction - they
are planning to exempt themselves from the privacy act and require
personal information from those assisted by charities:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/326040/rape-crisis-will-risk-funding-to-keep-data-private
(see also:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/325740/govt-on-shaky-ground-in-data-demand,-lawyers-say
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/325709/privacy-commission-investigates-data-for-funding-proposal
Charities should be supported by charity. Money taken in taxation is not >provided charitably.
Religious organisations should not be considered a charity (spreading >>>>>unthruths and lying to children is not charitable).
That is your opinion; they (and our representatives in parliament)
appear to have a different view. Why do you think your opinion should
hold sway over the majority?
It's not an opinion that lying to children is uncharitable.
It is not my definition - it is yours. Theya re your statements - doYour support for what you call socialism is noted.
As is your continued dishonesty.
Aah - the last resort of those with a failing argument - dishonestly >>>>>> attack your opponent. Where have I been dishonest?
In saying that I support socialism. Attributing a position to someone >>>>>that they do not hold is very dishonest.
Your definition of socialism is not mine, but based on your
statements, and your definition of socialism, it appears that you do
support socialism.
I don't recall giving a definition of socialism.
See above where you said:
"We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill
defined. To me it means that people pay for services they use and not
for services they don't. Others think "fair" means that those that
earn more should pay proportionally more. Then again some think that
"fair" means that what someone has left at the end of the day should
be the same as everyone else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. "
Oh dear. Is that what you call a definition? It's not, and wasn't given as >one.
Then I ask: Do you support your statements or not?You appear to support what you call "core government functions" being
funded through other than user pays.
Appear? That's weasel words.
I said that capitalism as you define it does not
exist in any country currently - all countries have some part of their >>>> economy that is not subject to user-pays. You have said that you
support some aspects of government not being based on "user-pays" - by >>>> your definition that is socialism.
What do I support not being based on user pays?
"Many of those are a core function of government." - your response to
asking how a variety of departements could be funded by user-pays.
You still can't provide specifics.
If that is a misrepresentation of
your posistion perhaps you could explain which of your statements
above needs to be amended.
I am not going to alter strawman statements you've constructed.
Indeed nor should you. I'm just asking about your own statements -
unless of course you are now claiming some of them were strawman
statements?
Which statements in particular? Be specific.
Of course it is possible that,
inadvertently, you were dishonest about your own beliefs, or what I
have said - if you still think I have been dishonest in this thread
then quote the words you believe demonstate that.
You are dishonest in most threads Rich, that's well known by many that >>>read these groups.
Is that what you call a strawman statement? Guilt by accusation from
trolls? Stick to this thread and tell me where I have been dishonest
if you can/. Otherwise, you may wish to demostrate at least some
decemcy by apologising.
Sorry Rich. I don't have time for your games. I find you less and less >appealing to have a discussion with because you are so blatantly dishonest >and partisan. I'm done wasting time on you.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 08:56:24 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:And no person has that right as far as setting laws. Once a law is
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:34:25 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:41:03 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
george152 wrote:
On 3/6/2017 7:37 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2017-03-06, JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:I think we all want every-one to pay their share of taxes.
Matt McCarten, Labour campaign manager didn't pay tax for Unite >>>>>>>>> Services.
And look at the darling of the idiot hard left - Jeremy Corbyn, >>>>>>>>> accused of tax dodging.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
Lefties, always wanting 'other' people to pay tax.
Hell yes, and the Rich want the poor to pay their tax, in both >>>>>>>> senses. People of all genders, poltical tastes and countries just do >>>>>>>> like paying tax.
What I would like to see is any Government show what % of our taxes >>>>>>>> goes to what it goes to. Roads, Army, idiots getting paid to waffle >>>>>>>> in the House. House cleaning etc.
We all want taxes to be fair. The problem is that "fair" is ill defined. >>>>>> To me it means that people pay for services they use and not for
services they don't. Others think "fair" means that those that earn more >>>>>> should pay proportionally more. Then again some think that "fair" means >>>>>> that what someone has left at the end of the day should be the same as >>>>>> everyone else.
Those three examples are capitalism, socialism and communism. Forcing >>>>>> people to pay for things they don't use is not just. People should only >>>>>> pay for things they and and not for things they don't.
On your definitions therefore there are no countries that represent
capitalism or communism, there may be a counry that fits the
"proportionaltely more"definition but I am not aware of one.
New Zealand fits the middle definition, as anyone who knows how our income >>>> tax system works would know.
GST has been increased under the National party - that is regressive, >>>>> and certainly is not a "user-pays" tax
It's progressive as those that have more discretionary spending pay a
higher proportion of it as GST. That's because neither rent nor mortgages >>>> accrue GST.
I agree with all those eminent economists who all agree that GST is
regressive - can you provide any support for your view?
Evidence of the progressive nature of GST has been provided to you many
times before. Economists that say it's regressive are being very flexible
with their definitions. It's progressive because those who earn more tend to >> pay a higher proportion of their income as GST because a higher proportion >> of what they spend their money on attracts GST.
- it fits none fyour
categories. Our income tax does have progrssively higher rates for
different tranches of income, but is not proportional - and other
taxes reduce the extent of progressiveness.
If you consider that the majority of low earners pay no net tax then it's >>>> easy to see that it's very progressive indeed.
You have been conned - see below.
I know this is old, but it's relevant:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/nettaxpaid.png
And as has been pointed out before, that table does not include all
taxes (notably missing GST but also others); it "allocates" what are
eupheistacally called "transfers" to groups without any explanation or
justification, and conveniently ignorews the reality that yhthe
highest perentages of tax as a percentage of total income are incurred
by middle income earners, not the wealthy.
It is Nat-spin from the Farrar spinmeister - just not believeable.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81429047/Small-number-of-taxpayers-bear-the-brunt-of-New-Zealand-tax-bill
Quote:
Households earning less than $50,000 receive more in credits than they pay >> in direct income tax by about a third.
By comparison, the top 3 per cent of individual income earners, earning more >> than $150,000 a year, pay 24 per cent of all tax received.
End quote.
You are correct however that different people see fairness in
different ways - New Zealand is a democracy and a government that does >>>>> not fairly represent the aggregate of views will over time lose
support.
Democracy should not give one person the right to say what happens to
another person's private property.
And it does not - it gives that right to a majority of our elected
representatives.
A right no person should have.
passed, teh justice system can require certain things to happen to
another persons private property - are you saying you disagree with a
judge imposing a fine for example, Allistar?.
It would be impossible to fund some "services" on a user-pay
basis, so you presumably either reject at least part of what you
believe "capitalism"requires, or you are happy with what you call a
"socialist"government.
Which services (other than those I mentioned) would be impossible to fund >>>> on a user pays basis?
And I believe every government puts out a thing called a Budget every >>>>>>> year where they show where the money is going
The state should be in the business of ensuring our liberty via a
justice system, a defence force and a police force. Everything else >>>>>> should (IMO) be private. You could argue a utility in education and >>>>>> health being provided by the state. Most definitely not arts funding, TV >>>>>> funding and various other dubious departments.
Adequate communication is of course part of an informed democracy, and >>>>> vital for defence (including civil defence functions.
Adequate communication doesn't lead to Shortland Street or any of the
other publicly funded programmes. The government does not need to fund any >>>> entertainment in order to have a functioning civil defense system.
So who are the ""users" for user-pay levies for: Foreign Affairs
(including the millions paid to a Saudi businessman), Dept of
Conservation, Dept of Environment, Reserve Bank, Treasury, DPM&C, The
Speaker (including parliamentary costs), the Ombudsman, the Commerce
Commission, Inland Revenue, Housing Coporation, Transport Agency,
CERA, Ministry of Ag & Fish,government support for many charities . .
.
Many of those are a core function of government. For others it's direct
users (e.g. DoC and Ag & Fish are those that enjoy the land/sea, Housing
Corp shouldn't be a government agency. Transport Agency should be a
department of the organisation that owns and maintains roads.
The government shouldn't support charities, they should tax people less and >> allow them to support those charities.
Religious organisations should not be considered a charity (spreading
unthruths and lying to children is not charitable).
Your support for what you call socialism is noted.
As is your continued dishonesty.
Aah - the last resort of those with a failing argument - dishonestly
attack your opponent. Where have I been dishonest?
In saying that I support socialism. Attributing a position to someone that >> they do not hold is very dishonest.
Your definition of socialism is not mine, but based on your
statements, and your definition of socialism, it appears that you do
support socialism. I said that capitalism as you define it does not
exist in any country currently - all countries have some part of their economy that is not subject to user-pays. You have said that you
support some aspects of government not being based on "user-pays" - by
your definition that is socialism. If that is a misrepresentation of
your posistion perhaps you could explain which of your statements
above needs to be amended. Of course it is possible that,
inadvertently, you were dishonest about your own beliefs, or what I
have said - if you still think I have been dishonest in this thread
then quote the words you believe demonstate that.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 93:21:42 |
| Calls: | 2,122 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 11,149 |
| D/L today: |
51 files (22,102K bytes) |
| Messages: | 950,692 |
