Results 51 to 75 of 185

  1. Post
    #51
    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.
    Using this twisted definition of fair you have, the only reason everyone should pay the same tax is if we are all paid the same income, regardless of what we do for a living. Which is obviously not "fair" either, unless we are all doing exactly the same job as well.

    Maybe one day, when the machines have taken all the jobs from us and we're all equally unemployed, you'll get your wish...

  2. Post
    #52
    dickytim wrote:
    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.
    Well our neoliberal overlords think having lots of children is great for the business. More customers, more people competing for jobs to keep wages low ... win-win for business.

  3. Post
    #53
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Well our neoliberal overlords think having lots of children is great for the business. More customers, more people competing for jobs to keep wages low ... win-win for business.
    Thread has now become one to post your favourite conspiracy theories. Is this the Zionist or non version?

  4. Post
    #54
    swazi wrote:
    Thread has now become one to post your favourite conspiracy theories. Is this the Zionist or non version?
    Place your New World Order here:
    https://www.ishopnewworld.co.nz/

  5. Post
    #55
    Dickytim still trying to work out why elderly get to sit down on the bus

  6. Post
    #56
    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?
    Just wanted to come back to this one, because he's literally asking why if he had it so tough when he was poor, why we shouldn't tax people in that same position more, in the name of fairness.

    I know it's said we should pity the afflicted, but ****ing hell.

  7. Post
    #57
    InvisibleShadow wrote:
    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.
    That’s not the point. The point is it’s not fair

  8. Post
    #58
    SirGrim wrote:
    The point is it’s not fair
    Yep, it's not fair to people earning a decent whack. And a flat tax isn't fair to poor people.

    So, why do you prefer one form of unfairness to another? Is it because you somehow believe poor people are just poor because they're lazy?

  9. Post
    #59
    swazi wrote:
    Thread has now become one to post your favourite conspiracy theories. Is this the Zionist or non version?
    What KiwiTT said is true - we need a growing population to sustain economic growth. You either get it through babies or migrants. Hence why Working For Families was established - to try to convince the middle class to have some babies.

    Oh, and to understand the importance of babies, it also kinda helps if you view national superannuation as a ponzi scheme.

  10. Post
    #60
    dickytim wrote:
    Society did me no favours
    So you didn't go to school? You've never gone to the hospital? Never driven on a road?

  11. Post
    #61
    You know those armchair debates you sometimes have with people where you "put the world to right". What impact does these discussions have long-term on society? - food-for-thought? - change-of-view? - or nothing at all?

  12. Post
    #62
    Edward Diego wrote:
    So you didn't go to school? You've never gone to the hospital? Never driven on a road?
    Never taken advantage of the lower tax rates you want to do away with...

  13. Post
    #63
    There are different views and types of "fairness" in tax theory.
    A flat tax is fair in application and treats all the same. Which is "fair". And has a huge benefit of economic efficiency. But they are regressive in outcomes. You can have the same argument about race based quota systems.

    And goddam I hate the roads schools and hospitals argument. It's stupid and ignorant. And désigned to shut down debate.

  14. Post
    #64
    GaR wrote:
    Never taken advantage of the lower tax rates you want to do away with...
    Youth minimum wage used to be like what $6/hr?

  15. Post
    #65
    hoe_rag wrote:
    And goddam I hate the roads schools and hospitals argument. It's stupid and ignorant. And désigned to shut down debate.
    Why and how?

    That statement itself appears to be intended to stop arguments you don't like without having to give a compelling reason.

    I'm curious albeit that wasn't my argument. Mine was that those things lower the cost of living to hit the cost of living threshold. And progressive taxes are just an extension of that.

  16. Post
    #66
    I just thought of a fun analogy.

    Say you take a loaf of bread to feed the ducks. You start dishing out the bread and one big fat aggressive duck starts chasing away the others, attacking them and making sure he's in front of you at all times. Is it fair to give the other ducks any bread? Seeing as he's working his ass off to get the most and the others are just looking for handouts?

    Would you personally give the entire loaf to this one duck? The hardest worker. Or would you make an effort to distribute the bread to some of the other ducks who are just standing there.

    Personally, from true experience although it has been a long time, I tend to remember who has and hasn't been fed and try to evenly distribute it, especially to the smaller ones being bullied by the big duck. Oh, I did this earlier this year on rabbit island in Japan. So it was more recent.

    Remember, this is a fairness question. Not a taxation question, it's distribution and I know the first thing coming is something about taxation.

    Is it fair to give any of the other ducks bread when you consider the effort each puts in?

    And would you give that one duck the entire loaf?

    Ooh and I would love to know why you picked your answers.

  17. Post
    #67
    Bread is bad for ducks. [true]

    Let them eat cake.

  18. Post
    #68
    suntoucher wrote:
    Why and how?

    That statement itself appears to be intended to stop arguments you don't like without having to give a compelling reason.

    I'm curious albeit that wasn't my argument. Mine was that those things lower the cost of living to hit the cost of living threshold. And progressive taxes are just an extension of that.
    What are those things that lower the cost of living?

    The basic problem with the schools roads and hospital argument is that there is an implicit assumption that they either wouldnt exist if it werent for benevelent govts or that we get a good deal for the money and resources that go into them. The roading situation is a dirty corrupt business and the hospitals are a mess. But the majority are fine with this because maybe they think someone else is paying for it not them. A few dollars and people think its a great deal. Its the same reason hundreds of thousands of people dont protest about govt granting special favours and priviledges to a business. It might only cost an individual a few dollars so its not worth their time to protest about it. But it adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars.

    suntoucher wrote:
    I just thought of a fun analogy.

    Say you take a loaf of bread to feed the ducks. You start dishing out the bread and one big fat aggressive duck starts chasing away the others, attacking them and making sure he's in front of you at all times. Is it fair to give the other ducks any bread? Seeing as he's working his ass off to get the most and the others are just looking for handouts?

    Would you personally give the entire loaf to this one duck? The hardest worker. Or would you make an effort to distribute the bread to some of the other ducks who are just standing there.

    Personally, from true experience although it has been a long time, I tend to remember who has and hasn't been fed and try to evenly distribute it, especially to the smaller ones being bullied by the big duck. Oh, I did this earlier this year on rabbit island in Japan. So it was more recent.

    Remember, this is a fairness question. Not a taxation question, it's distribution and I know the first thing coming is something about taxation.

    Is it fair to give any of the other ducks bread when you consider the effort each puts in?

    And would you give that one duck the entire loaf?

    Ooh and I would love to know why you picked your answers.
    You forgot a step. You first have to steal all the bread from the ducks then resdistribute as you see fit. What gives you the right to do that?

  19. Post
    #69
    hoe_rag wrote:
    What are those things that lower the cost of living?

    The basic problem with the schools roads and hospital argument is that there is an implicit assumption that they either wouldnt exist if it werent for benevelent govts or that we get a good deal for the money and resources that go into them. The roading situation is a dirty corrupt business and the hospitals are a mess. But the majority are fine with this because maybe they think someone else is paying for it not them. A few dollars and people think its a great deal. Its the same reason hundreds of thousands of people dont protest about govt granting special favours and priviledges to a business. It might only cost an individual a few dollars so its not worth their time to protest about it. But it adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars.
    People aren't using that argument on an existence basis, it's a "Free to use" basis. They would exist but education wouldn't be free. Roads would be toll roads and would only exist for the most profitable. And healthcare would be user pays like in the US.

    All three of these would **** over the people who need them most. Poor people. It's a valid argument. Dickytim said society never benefitted him and he was poor but I bet he used all three without paying for them in full. And wouldn't be "wealthy" today without them.

    hoe_rag wrote:
    You forgot a step. You first have to steal all the bread from the ducks then resdistribute as you see fit. What gives you the right to do that?
    Already covered that it's not a taxation question, your refusal to answer it shows your understanding of fairness and how you would undermine your own argument by answering it truthfully.

    You would make a politician.

    It's in your quote, but it specifically said this:
    Remember, this is a fairness question. Not a taxation question, it's distribution and I know the first thing coming is something about taxation.
    And of course the first from you is 'waaaaah taxation, that will get him'

  20. Post
    #70
    suntoucher wrote:
    People aren't using that argument on an existence basis, it's a "Free to use" basis. They would exist but education wouldn't be free. Roads would be toll roads and would only exist for the most profitable. And healthcare would be user pays like in the US.

    All three of these would **** over the people who need them most. Poor people. It's a valid argument. Dickytim said society never benefitted him and he was poor but I bet he used all three without paying for them in full. And wouldn't be "wealthy" today without them.
    So you think poor people dont pay for schools, roads or healthcare in NZ? You have just proved my point on why its a persistant argument that just wont go away because of sheer ignorance.

    Already covered that it's not a taxation question, your refusal to answer it shows your understanding of fairness and how you would undermine your own argument by answering it truthfully.

    You would make a politician.
    Sorry I thought we were talking about taxation not voluntary charitable giving. They arn't the same you know that right?

  21. Post
    #71
    hoe_rag wrote:
    So you think poor people dont pay for schools, roads or healthcare in NZ? You have just proved my point on why its a persistant argument that just wont go away because of sheer ignorance.


    Sorry I thought we were talking about taxation not voluntary charitable giving. They arn't the same you know that right?
    Poor people pay less than the real cost. As it should be.

    Your second paragraph is pointless, if you're nullifying discussion because you don't want like the argument say it. Don't try and spin it as trying to bring it back on topic because we both know that it's on topic. Especially if you just complained about argument nullification.

    I'm establishing the definition of fairness that SirGrim and DickyTim keep coming back to. Obviously it's not agreed. So an agreed definition is required and perspective probing is how to achieve it.

  22. Post
    #72
    Feel free to perform your own, if it also builds your argument, all the better for you.

  23. Post
    #73
    suntoucher wrote:
    Poor people pay less than the real cost. As it should be.

    Your second paragraph is pointless, if you're nullifying discussion because you don't want like the argument say it. Don't try and spin it as trying to bring it back on topic because we both know that it's on topic. Especially if you just complained about argument nullification.

    I'm establishing the definition of fairness that SirGrim and DickyTim keep coming back to. Obviously it's not agreed. So an agreed definition is required and perspective probing is how to achieve it.
    Ok so poor people get a good deal for what they do pay for. Thats the fallacy that people blindly believe. If by real cost you mean bloated wasteful corrupt govt spending in partnership with private interests then good for you.

  24. Post
    #74
    So your argument isn't really an issue with the mechanics of the system and instead your opinion of state provided services and governance?

    As already mentioned healthcare in the United States is a brilliant example of how commercialising what should be a social good leads to lesser outcomes (and also a higher cost) for the average person.

    The system is far from perfect but not as dire as you need to believe.

  25. Post
    #75
    We have a form of flat tax already; GST 15% - It has been said this tax impacts the poor more than it does the rich, so if we made it flat for all income groups it would be quite bad for the majority of people, as opposed to the minority of high income earners.

    We could create a basket of essential goods and services and remove GST off them, and increase the non-essentials GST accordingly and make it tax revenue neutral.