Page 2 of 8 First 12345 ... Last
Results 26 to 50 of 185

  1. Post
    #26
    suntoucher wrote:
    Huh?

    You won't pay less tax getting married. Your spouse doesn't declare half of your income. And you'll have more outgoings as you're supporting a second person.

    Although that concept could be good for a laugh for a single earner couple, "I run a home business, I pay my wife 50k in wages. I've no revenue. So I declare income of 50k, and so does she."

    Boom, saved yourself 6.5k in income tax and you'd both qualify for that $500 a year middle income return. So 7.5k.

    I don't actually see any legal issues with it.
    Actually you still pay the tax on the $100,000 then she pays tax on the $50,000 too, boom thanks for your generosity.

  2. Post
    #27
    [QUOTE=suntoucher;11312066]Ahahahahahahahahaha, this was all building up to a flat tax?

    Seriously?

    Flat taxes are just a method to screw over the poor and line the pockets of the wealthy.

    Yeah, **** the poors. I feel hard done by on my single earner 100k, while that couple over there is paying 7.5k total less tax on 50k each. Of course that secondary person consumes far more than 7.5k to live but they're obviously much better off and it's unfair.

    QUOTE]

    Tell me again how paying a flat tax is not fair on everyone? the wealthy still pay more tax, and the poor less.

    It should not be a flat tax rate but a flat tax amount, that is actually fair. I pay $30,000+ in tax a year, but I consume less of that tax dollar than someone who pay $10,000 a year, I get no working for families, can't get a kiwi build home, not subsidy at all, have to pay all of my doctors visits etc. Please explain, without personal insults and sticking to logic how it is fair?

  3. Post
    #28
    Imagine thinking less is more.

  4. Post
    #29
    dickytim wrote:
    Tell me again how paying a flat tax is not fair on everyone? the wealthy still pay more tax, and the poor less.

    It should not be a flat tax rate but a flat tax amount, that is actually fair. I pay $30,000+ in tax a year, but I consume less of that tax dollar than someone who pay $10,000 a year, I get no working for families, can't get a kiwi build home, not subsidy at all, have to pay all of my doctors visits etc. Please explain, without personal insults and sticking to logic how it is fair?
    I'll bite.

    Flat tax is unfair because proportionately it hits the lower income earners harder. The more you earn, the more disposable income you have, the less the tax burdens you.

    The poor have the smallest disposable incomes and spend a higher proportion of their money on basic survival needs, such as housing, food, gas, etc... This means any tax bills put a greater burden on their standard of living. On the other hand, the wealthy can very easily afford the tax bill without it negatively effecting their standard of living. This is why wealthy people can pay vastly more in taxes but still live a lavish lifestyle compared to low wage earners.

  5. Post
    #30
    So where is it fair? Where is it fair to the higher wage earners?

    Why does my hard work benefit someone less capable than I am?

  6. Post
    #31
    I think the argument goes that society has benefitted you disproportionately more so than the people paying less tax. You have unfairly gained more through the lottery of life.

    There's an element of truth there, given prosperity seems to result from a combination of individual effort and where fortune has placed you.

  7. Post
    #32
    Still not telling me how it is fair.

    My first full time job at 16 paid $150 a week, my second $6.86 and hour. My parents weren't wealthy at all, in fact for a good portion of my life we had virtually no food on the table except what was provided by the church. Society did me no favours, they now tell me it is fair that I pay 3 times the tax of someone that can't be arsed pulling themselves up?

  8. Post
    #33
    dickytim wrote:
    Still not telling me how it is fair.

    My first full time job at 16 paid $150 a week, my second $6.86 and hour. My parents weren't wealthy at all, in fact for a good portion of my life we had virtually no food on the table except what was provided by the church. Society did me no favours, they now tell me it is fair that I pay 3 times the tax of someone that can't be arsed pulling themselves up?
    Exactly. Now imagine on top of that the government couldn't afford the healthcare system, welfare system, ACC system, education system and all of the things your family would have made good use of.

    So you got a massive American bill every time you used any of these. Where would you be today?

    Your family, and you would be in crippling debt and you wouldn't have had a chance to build yourself up to where you are today.

  9. Post
    #34
    Money grows exponentially from a relative reference point (amount someone requires to live but don't get this confused what people dub the living wage, because I think that campaign is slightly disingenuous), lets say it's $30,000 a year. If you earn 40k, you have the capability of putting 10k away per year, and lets say it naturally grows 1% ignoring inflation.

    Every year, not only do you have more money put away, but it itself is growing, and its growth is growing and so on and so forth. After a while you've got plenty of excess wealth, so you buy a car with a warranty, electric no less, it had a higher upfront cost but you'll now never be hit with a random car bill (although even if you did, you could afford the $4000 outright) and you only pay 3c per KM. You decide to rent a new house, as a result there's no health issues associated with an uninsulated house. You have a heatpump, so you don't get desperate and burn treated wood you found because you're cold. Pop out a kid, school camps are like a hundred bucks, it's not really much to worry about. You're not happy with your job, so you start looking for others. If it doesn't work out you still have plenty of savings to buffer.

    If you're below that 30k, apply the exact rule above but replace it with debt. Of course you still need to get to work, so you own a 90s car, it's old and costs you 23c per KM to run, whoops it broke down, it's going to be $500 to fix. You don't have that in cash so you take on more debt. Your house is an old, uninsulated shitbox. Your landlord DGAF. You want to take them to court but you can't afford the gas to get to wherever you need to be to do so. You have a kid, did you know condoms are $17 a box at the supermarket? That kid is basically ****ed without government services. You yourself can never climb out of this pit unless you win lotto, so you buy lotto tickets. You're too busy making sure you have a job that you don't want to risk putting yourself in a worse situation by moving jobs, even with the promise of higher pay.

    Ironically the poor have higher outwards cashflow on basics because they can't afford to benefit from new technology (insulation, car efficiency, heating etc).

    Government services lower that cost of living. Give the children of poor people a chance to get a good education, remain in good health and build themselves up, exactly as you have done.

    Higher taxes on the poor exacerbates the situation, but higher taxes on the rich are just a complaint point. No one rich thinks, "I don't really want to work to a $5,000 payrise because I'll only get $3,500 of it. If I got $4,000 of it, though, well, that's a completely different scenario".

    So here's the reality, it's not fair for the individual. But it's fair for society because it creates equal opportunity.

    For the rich it's an annoyance at best, but it doesn't change your drive, or motivation. So who cares if we annoy them if little dickytim has an opportunity to grow up and get a good job.

    Just as a disclaimer I'm in the former camp, although like you I grew up in a low income household, on benefits, in a small flat with 5 brothers and sisters. I know what it was like to miss out on school camps, and argue about school donations, and not get the yearbook (and the idea of that across society).

  10. Post
    #35
    I have no problem with paying tax as a percentage, fair or not, however the argument that I need to pay 33% but someone has to only pay 20% or less, then calling it fair is, quite frankly offensive.

    If you want to call a system fair then it would imply users pay the same.

    Oh yeah condoms are provided via many agencies free of charge, or with a prescription from your Dr. using that as an excuse for having too many children doesn't fly.

  11. Post
    #36
    dickytim wrote:
    I have no problem with paying tax as a percentage, fair or not, however the argument that I need to pay 33% but someone has to only pay 20% or less, then calling it fair is, quite frankly offensive.

    If you want to call a system fair then it would imply users pay the same.

    Oh yeah condoms are provided via many agencies free of charge, or with a prescription from your Dr. using that as an excuse for having too many children doesn't fly.
    It costs money and time to see a doctor (plus prescription cost). It costs gas and time to go to a family planning clinic. They're already at the supermarket.

    Haha, I've said my piece, your response implies you weren't here to consider an opposing view, especially as I already addressed the word "fair". You just want people to look at your view under the guise of "wanting to hear arguments otherwise".

    At least I openly declared your view to be stupid and made no expression as to wanting reasoning why it's good.

    If I had to change the tax system, I'd add an even higher tax band/rate, raise the current highest band (same rate) and lower the rates of the lower bands.

  12. Post
    #37
    dickytim wrote:
    I have no problem with paying tax as a percentage, fair or not, however the argument that I need to pay 33% but someone has to only pay 20% or less, then calling it fair is, quite frankly offensive.

    If you want to call a system fair then it would imply users pay the same.
    How are you offended by that?

    If the person standing next to you earns $20k, and you earn $200k, why the hell would you be offended if they are asked to hand over $4k, and you have to hand over $66k? You still have $118k more than them!!! Why are you so annoyed? You are still in a FAR FAR better situation.

    Being offended by that just makes you look greedy af.

    You can afford to pay more to help create a better society. That's what progressive tax is all about.

    EDIT: My example does't even take into account that you are taxed exactly the same on the same amount of money. E.g. your first $40k might only be taxed at 20%, same as the person next to you. So you'd actually be even better off than in my example.

  13. Post
    #38
    s0cks wrote:
    It's easy to criticize from ones armchair. Need to talk to a teacher really. Last teacher I spoke to said they worked most of the holidays catching up and preparing for next term, and that during term they basically worked 6 days a week, 12hrs a day just to keep a float. Not only that, they were paying out of their own pocket for school supplies. They were hella stressed and it did not sound like a job I would want.
    There are teachers who do this. There are also a lot of teachers who are doing **** all but regurgitating the same thing they did for the past x years and padding their "planning" with a whole lot of cut and paste.

    Problem is, there is no meaningful way of differentiating between these groups of teachers.

    Don't have the experience with secondary education, but with regards to primary (including intermediate) the academic component is largely a joke. While a teachers competency does make a difference here, the present mixed ability classes and teacher : student ratios make the entire thing pretty rubbish and successfully manages to burnout a bunch of the more competent teachers.

  14. Post
    #39
    dickytim wrote:
    You are confusing your beloved Labour parties failure as a statistic for builds, the housing consent for 2016 - 2018 were over 92,000. Apparently the statistic is that about 10% of consented properties are never built.

    From 01/01/2011 - 01/07/2018 = 183,817 consents

    Guess not estimate
    Well lets get rid of 90% and just say 'majority' of homes ...

  15. Post
    #40
    dickytim wrote:
    I have no problem with paying tax as a percentage, fair or not, however the argument that I need to pay 33%.
    You're not paying 33%, you're paying 33% on your income over $70K. And if you're earning well over 70K, congratulations on earning far more than the average New Zealander.

  16. Post
    #41
    dickytim wrote:
    Actually you still pay the tax on the $100,000 then she pays tax on the $50,000 too, boom thanks for your generosity.
    It's true and totally unfair, more so than claiming lower income people are more disadvantaged on flat tax of 17%.

    A couple earning a combined $100k (50k each), pays $8k less tax than a single person earning $100k

    https://paye.net.nz/calculator.html

    Someone on minimum wage or close to it, let's use $39k current pays $5.3k in annual tax. Under 17% flat tax they pay $6.3k tax, $1k more - but that $1k is 2.5% of their income, while the single person household coughs up 8% more tax from their income

    Edward Diego wrote:
    You're not paying 33%, you're paying 33% on your income over $70K. And if you're earning well over 70K, congratulations on earning far more than the average New Zealander.
    That's the problem isn't it. Why strive to earn over $70k when you get taxed into oblivion. Let's just stick with our low skill, low wage economy and we can all be fruit pickers

  17. Post
    #42
    SirGrim wrote:
    It's true and totally unfair, more so than claiming lower income people pay more tax on flat tax of 17%.

    A couple earning a combined $100k, pays $8k less tax than a single person earning $100k

    https://paye.net.nz/calculator.html
    He's wrong and doesn't understand how company taxation works. Employees are a cost, you pay company taxes on profit, not revenue. So if your company pays you and your missus 50K to work for the company, and then earns $110K, you pay income tax on your 50K, she pays income tax on her 50K, then the company pays company tax on 10K.

    Be aware though, that IRD is well up on people using companies to avoid tax, and will ping you hard for underpaying yourself. https://www.classic.ird.govt.nz/tech...avoidance.html

  18. Post
    #43
    SirGrim wrote:
    Why strive to earn over $70k when you get taxed into oblivion
    You're right, that's why no-one earns 6 figure salaries. Let's say you earn 160K, 90K more than the 70K limit. You still take home an additional 60K.

  19. Post
    #44
    SirGrim wrote:

    That's the problem isn't it. Why strive to earn over $70k when you get taxed into oblivion
    This argument is stupid.

    Suntoucher wrote:
    Higher taxes on the poor exacerbates the situation, but higher taxes on the rich are just a complaint point. No one rich thinks, "I don't really want to work to a $5,000 payrise because I'll only get $3,500 of it. If I got $4,000 of it, though, well, that's a completely different scenario".
    No one has ever said they don't want a payrise because they'll only get 67%. No one will be more or less motivated by that tax change. And if this person did ever exist (which they don't) they won't suddenly bust their ass off for 82.5% of their payrise.

    People are motivated for more money, or they're not motivated for more money. The tax rate is not a factor.

  20. Post
    #45
    SirGrim wrote:
    A couple earning a combined $100k (50k each), pays $8k less tax than a single person earning $100k
    Why is this even a point of contention? You are aware that "a couple" is two people right? Two people... two. Anything other than a true flat tax rate is going to have individuals' combined incomes paying less than a single income.

    SirGrim wrote:
    Why strive to earn over $70k when you get taxed into oblivion.
    Because having more money is great... ? Also, 33% (of every dollar over $70k) is "taxed to oblivion"... really?

  21. Post
    #46
    I'm earning 70k, but I don't want another $2,680 (4k pay rise). I will only accept $3,300 otherwise it's not worth working hard EVER AGAIN.

  22. Post
    #47
    I understand you want to buy my classic car at a profit to me, but that's fine, you only have to pay cost because I earn 70k and the government will take more than 17.5% of the profit.

  23. Post
    #48
    My shares went up, but I'm not going to sell them at a profit because I'll lose 10% more on them over a 17.5% tax rate! I'll wait for the share price to go back down so I don't have to pay so much in tax.

  24. Post
    #49
    Oooh, I got another one.

    "Only the fools in our society earn 6 figures or more. They could have stopped working hard after 70k and they wouldn't be paying so much in tax! They would be so much better off."

  25. Post
    #50
    SirGrim wrote:
    That's the problem isn't it. Why strive to earn over $70k when you get taxed into oblivion. Let's just stick with our low skill, low wage economy and we can all be fruit pickers
    As someone who is taxed at the 33% tax rate, this attitude seems utterly bizarre. You either have no concept of how taxes work, or you are just using the tax rate as an excuse for why you'll never make it in life.

    The amount of disposable income you have as a single person, even living on your own in Auckland like I am, is ridiculously good when you're making 70k or higher, compared to people who are barely scraping by.