Results 126 to 150 of 185

  1. Post
    dickytim be ordering royal at dinner, then chopping in the name of fairness.

  2. Post
    suntoucher wrote:
    Like a third of the posts in the thread are mine.



    I'd agree with this, except my version is at a minimum add the tax free bracket and left the rest as is. But ideally raise the threshold of the current top bracket, and add an even higher bracket above it on top of the free lowest bracket.

    Maybe 33% can be 100k and 37% at 150k.
    I approve of this. Don't know why anyone in parliament is pitching this idea tbh

  3. Post
    i.e.awesome wrote:
    I approve of this. Don't know why anyone in parliament is pitching this idea tbh
    Because most politicians understand that a large percentage of the populace doesn't understand how progressive taxes work, so even though they'll actually pay less tax on 80k. They'll just see 37% tax and think they'll be paying more.

    The rest of the politicians don't understand how progressive taxes work and think everyone will pay 37%.

  4. Post
    yeah, **** those ****s that earn more than me, lets tax them more.

  5. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    yeah, **** those ****s that earn more than me, lets tax them more.
    That only works if the person you're talking to isn't in the group screwed.

    Why do you think I post so much on GP? I don't work very many hours. Well, at a job under someone else.

    Rest of my hours is shitposting and building an empire.

  6. Post
    I was actually thinking about politics, could be a fun use of time.

  7. Post
    suntoucher wrote:
    I was actually thinking about politics, could be a fun use of time.
    I can make sweet infographic videos for you

  8. Post
    I'll be happy with something like the following:

    00.00 - 10,000.00 : No Tax
    10,001.00 - 30,000.00: 10%
    30,001.00 - 70,000.00: 20%
    70,001.00 - 100,000.00: 30%
    100,001.00 - 200,000.00: 40%
    200,001.00 - infinity: 50%

    I can see a whole bunch of high earner going to scream though and if the company tax stays as it is, then a whole bunch of people is going to setup companies to avoid paying high personal taxes.

  9. Post
    Most major Western countries have had a go at very high progressive tax rates. They didn't work then so what makes you think they will now.

  10. Post
    They'll just move off shore, Panama stylo.

  11. Post
    knack wrote:
    I'll be happy with something like the following:

    00.00 - 10,000.00 : No Tax
    10,001.00 - 30,000.00: 10%
    30,001.00 - 70,000.00: 20%
    70,001.00 - 100,000.00: 30%
    100,001.00 - 200,000.00: 40%
    200,001.00 - infinity: 50%

    I can see a whole bunch of high earner going to scream though and if the company tax stays as it is, then a whole bunch of people is going to setup companies to avoid paying high personal taxes.
    Is that because you are in the 30 - 70,000 range, and you know **** anyone earning more than you?

  12. Post
    hoe_rag wrote:
    Most major Western countries have had a go at very high progressive tax rates. They didn't work then so what makes you think they will now.
    worked pretty goddamn well in the 50s and 60s in the US when the top rate was damn near 90% but whatevs.

  13. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    Is that because you are in the 30 - 70,000 range, and you know **** anyone earning more than you?
    Anyone making under $100k would be better off.

  14. Post
    kierbear wrote:
    worked pretty goddamn well in the 50s and 60s in the US when the top rate was damn near 90% but whatevs.
    You pay 90% then, since it is such a great idea, all I see is people wanting to lump a high tax rate on someone else.

    Maybe keirbear you could contribute the 50% that is not currently taxed to the poor?

    - - - Updated - - -

    GaR wrote:
    Anyone making under $100k would be better off.
    again, so **** anyone earning more than you right?

  15. Post
    dickytim wrote:

    again, so **** anyone earning more than you right?
    You could turn that around and say "so **** anyone earning less than you". The lower the top tax rate, the less tax revenue, the lesser the benefits for lower earners.

    It's a matter of balance.

  16. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    You could turn that around and say "so **** anyone earning less than you". The lower the top tax rate, the less tax revenue, the lesser the benefits for lower earners.

    It's a matter of balance.
    Yes it is about balance, but all I keep hearing is to tax those earning more to prop up those earning less, which is typical Labour, the problem is that this pulls down everyone rather than trying to build up everyone.

  17. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    Yes it is about balance, but all I keep hearing is to tax those earning more to prop up those earning less, which is typical Labour, the problem is that this pulls down everyone rather than trying to build up everyone.
    It is a truism, that the more you earn the more disposable income you have, therefore you have more capacity to pay a higher tax burden. This is why GST was a greater burden on the poor than on the rich. A flat tax would be similar. This is why we have progressive taxes. However, I do think the tax thresholds should be adjusted annually in line with the average wage change.

  18. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    Is that because you are in the 30 - 70,000 range, and you know **** anyone earning more than you?
    Nah and Nah. How is it equality when people who work on minimum wage who struggle to pay rent/feed their family, have to pay the same percentage of tax as a CEO?
    Last edited by knack; 26th July 2019 at 2:35 pm.

  19. Post
    hoe_rag wrote:
    Most major Western countries have had a go at very high progressive tax rates. They didn't work then so what makes you think they will now.
    They seem to work fine in the Scandinavian countries. In Sweden for example, the highest tax rate is more than 60%.

  20. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    However, I do think the tax thresholds should be adjusted annually in line with the average wage change.
    That will be a logistic nightmare.

  21. Post
    knack wrote:
    That will be a logistic nightmare.
    Why ... we can change them every start of the new tax year.

  22. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Why ... we can change them every start of the new tax year.
    Tell that to small business owners.

  23. Post
    knack wrote:
    Tell that to small business owners.
    Well we have so many outsourced payroll options these days.

  24. Post
    knack wrote:
    They seem to work fine in the Scandinavian countries. In Sweden for example, the highest tax rate is more than 60%.
    Do you know what the people in those countries get for that 60% ? Look it up before trying to make a comparison to NZ.

  25. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    Do you know what the people in those countries get for that 60% ? Look it up before trying to make a comparison to NZ.
    Name:  index.jpg
Views: 59
Size:  5.6 KB

    Societal benefits didn't magically appear over there and everyone was like, "Well, you've done such a gosh darn good job, you know what, lets all pay higher tax."

    The government said, "We want to give you this, and it will be paid for with higher tax" over and over and over again. So if you want those things, you want people to pay more tax.