Hard News: Reporting Afghanistan
111 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Least of all Garth.
It would mean mingling with the infidel..
-
3410,
He added that those on the top rate, expected to be cut from 38 per cent to 33 per cent, consumed more and therefore paid more GST.
Just once, I'd like to see him called on that bullshit; personally, I mean.
-
Resist the lies. GST is regressive, full stop - as Key and his media minders know full well.
Sorry, this argument annoys the hell out of me.
GST is a flat tax. It can be regressive in individual cases because people who earn more may spend a lesser proportion of their income. It is not necessarily so. People on a high income might save for several years and then blow way more than their income on building property, therefore paying way more than one year's GST in a year. In that instance it's not progressive. It's a percentage of expenditure, not a percentage of income that it is flat against.
But you can make the same claim about income tax. People in upper incomes are more likely to write off expenses against tax, have tax havens, trusts, etc (ie, Sam Morgan recently saying he paid no tax). Doesn't make income tax regressive.
The statement Key made is also generally true. People on an income of $100,000, even if they spend 70% of their income, pay more GST than people on an income of $40,000 who spend 100% of their income. Possibly a lesser percentage of their income, but that doesn't make the statement a lie.
-
3410,
People on an income of $100,000, even if they spend 70% of their income, pay more GST than people on an income of $40,000 who spend 100% of their income. Possibly a lesser percentage of their income, but that doesn't make the statement a lie.
Yes, it does. When we say "pay more tax" in this context it is understood that we mean "pay more tax as a percentage of income", not "pay more tax in dollar terms". The PM is deliberately distorting the meaning in order to convince. I'm relaxed about that being called dishonest.
-
He added that those on the top rate, ... consumed more and therefore paid more GST.
Sorry, but that sounds like a statement which refers to absolute amounts, not percentages to me...
There ya go Craig, that was *almost* in defence of honest John :-).
- Mind you, the reason it sound like that to me is that it echoes a complaint you often hear from those who feel they pay more than their fair share of tax - ie: I earn X amount, so therefore I'm paying X amount more than those bludgers further down the ladder.
-
"I'm not prepared to send people to a destination that I'm not prepared to come myself."
Next week Mr Key plans to spend a night behind bars at Paremoremo, at her Majesty's leisure.
Tune in the first week in June when Mr Key dines at Auckland's City Mission, before a fun filled night roughing it in Albert Park.
-
anth,
Wow, that Stuff story has a poll that is really bad even for an online opinion poll. No option for "good for me but I don't like it" or the reverse.
-
Just once, I'd like to see him called on that bullshit; personally, I mean.
Oh look, Brian Edwards lays into Key for preaching at the poor not to envy rich folk like the trader-in-chief himself, as they pocket their tax cuts this week
-
I strongly and sadly suspect that the reason the people of Bamiyan have not had the sort of aid and reconstruction they want is because their province is peaceful so the powers that be do not feel that their loyalty and peacefulness need to be bought with overt displays of generosity.
They obviously need to sacrifice some of their young men (and wedding parties) and go attack some GI's (attacking NZDF personnel would obviously not lead to the same end).
Recent history is replete with the lesson that taking on the US gets you reconstructed into economic power house status. Just ask Germany and Japan. Hard to see it in Iraq or Vietnam, but the US took them on, so it obviously doesn't work both ways.
The Taliban via Al Qaidi took on the US, so it should be looking for Afghanistan, its just that the goodness is not evenly distributed.
There was an article in the Grauniad here recently on ski tourism in Bamiyan and from it I understand the road in is being markedly upgraded, as is the airport. There are locals being trained as ski guides too. It's getting on for summer up here in the NH, now but pencil Bamiyan in for your off piste enjoyment later in the year.
Does John ski? maybe he should be encouraged to go back then.
-
When we say "pay more tax" in this context it is understood that we mean "pay more tax as a percentage of income", not "pay more tax in dollar terms".
Understood by who? That's not what I understand by "pay more tax" at all.
-
3410,
That's not what I understand by "pay more tax" at all.
So man A, earning $500k and paying $6k tax "pays more tax" than man B, earning $20k and paying $5k tax?
Okay, technically you're right. It's not a lie; it's a trick, but it's a dishonest representation of the situation, all the same.
You could equally say that a Cheetah running at 20kph is "fast" and a tortoise doing 15kph is "slow", but that also ignores the context.
The obvious implication in the phrase "pays more tax" is that no one has the right to complain if the govt. moves to "close the gaps". This spin is an insidious plan to normalise the idea of a flat tax (because that would be "fair", wouldn't it? Everyone paying "the same"?).
Now, would someone with more brains and knowledge than me please back me up and explain this better. :)
-
National and Labour have traditionally operated under different definitions of "fairness", which always needs to be remembered when we start arguing about what is "fair".
For Labour, "fairness" = "creating equality of opportunity" (which means that the disadvantaged should be given more support; one way of achieving that is through a progressive tax system).
For National, "fairness" = "equality of treatment under law" (which means, amongst other things, that the advantaged should not be more highly taxed).
[I am a little worried that this seems to be being broadened into "equality of treatment across individuals and corporations" - but it's consistent with their general theme.] -
Oh look, Brian Edwards lays into Key for preaching at the poor not to envy rich folk like the trader-in-chief himself, as they pocket their tax cuts this week
*yawn* So the "$50 Million PM" should STFU, but anyone who suggests the "childless PM" should hold her tongue on anything to do with families is quite rightly slapped down for a particularly squalid form of argumentum ad hominem.
It's entirely fair and factual comment to note that a body of people who are quite happy to accept pay and conditions (and annual pay hikes) that most Battlers on Struggle Street can only dream of, are in a much better position than most to return any tax cuts they receive to the IRD if they're that horrible and "unfair".
Then again, perhaps I'm biased because my partner is one of those horrible rich pricks who actually has to pay his own mortgage...
-
*yawn* So the "$50 Million PM" should STFU,
Yes he fuking should.
If Helen had said all people with more than one baby should just get a job,(oh that's Paula ) then I'd suggest your comparison is apt, meanwhile it just sounds petty and by know means addresses the heartless attitude that Key has for others not of his ilk,(like Mark Hotchin etc).3410, Those with higher income are often the first to admit they pay their accountants to avoid paying taxes.To suggest they need the biggest cuts is once again National showing true colours. Most of us are cattle class. Fodder.All about jobs for the boys.
-
"But ... those who pay the top personal rate fit into some core and critical categories for our economy. They include doctors, entrepreneurs often, scientists, engineers, lawyers, accountants, school principals, nurses," he said.
Ah, hello . . . I'm married to a nurse and therefore know quite a few of them. Show me the nurse that falls into the income bracket of any of these people (excl school principals who might go over 70k in big schools). JK is so fundamentally out of touch with anyone earning less than 250k pa that it makes me sad to think of him calling the shots.
Between my incredibly well-paid part-time nursing wife and I, we bring in just under 100k total and our tax break will be 3.67% of sweet FA. We don't struggle but we don't get ahead either. On the last tax cut, when JK suggested that I put the extra into shares, my tax actually went up by $9 a fortnight because of a change in ACC. However, they are doing what they said they would do when voted in so can't complain about dishonesty. Just getting a bit sick of all the platitudes around tax cuts that are meaningless to those that need them - that's folks earning less than I do. -
If Helen had said all people with more than one baby should just get a job,(oh that's Paula ) then I'd suggest your comparison is apt, meanwhile it just sounds petty and by know means addresses the heartless attitude that Key has for others not of his ilk,(like Mark Hotchin etc).
@Sofie: Sorry for the mansplain here, but Helen Clark's uterus is fundamentally irrelevant to the quality or otherwise of the policies she promoted -- and I'd note she didn't exactly do it hard in da ghetto. Ditto for Key's supposed $50 million dollar man-ism.
Those with higher income are often the first to admit they pay their accountants to avoid paying taxes.
Really, Sofie -- since you went there, is that on the same planet of anecdotage where solo mothers fuck anything that moves as a revenue-gathering strategy? Yes, I make absolutely no apologies for making sure I get every penny I'm legally entitled to be refunded by the IRD. That doesn't make me an evil rich prick any more than every low-income person and beneficiaries who makes damn sure they're getting their full entitlements are blood-sucking leeches.
And I make no apologies for saying that if you want to run the line that (to quote Luke) Key is "fundamentally out of touch with anyone earning less than 250k pa" then I'd extend that bitch to every single person in Parliament. They sure seem able to put aside their differences when it comes to protecting their own "out of touch" pelf and privilege.
This household doesn't have the taxpayer making its mortgage payments on the downlow or a rort like the Greens renting their own properties back to its (subsidised) MPs.
-
Those with higher income are often the first to admit they pay their accountants to avoid paying taxes.
Jeez, you now have to admit to using an accountant.
ETA: @Craig snap! I pay what I need to - no more, no less. And yes, I have an accountant to do this for me. It's not like the IRD doesn't have accountants on its side.
-
ETA: @Craig snap! I pay what I need to - no more, no less. And yes, I have an accountant to do this for me.
My partner and I don't need to -- we're just rather rather anal about paperwork and spend tax season gently grinding our teeth while filling in our returns. Necessary evil and all that, and to be fair it's a doddle compared to the booby-trapped hoops you have to leap through elsewhere.
-
3410,
Sorry for the mansplain here, but Helen Clark's uterus is fundamentally irrelevant to the quality or otherwise of the policies she promoted
Okay, so lets talk about the quality or otherwise of the policy then. I presume you think that the wealthy are being unfairly burdened under the current tax structure. Have I got that right?
-
Okay, so lets talk about the quality or otherwise of the policy then.
It would be a refreshing novelty. You can start.
-
Okay, technically you're right. It's not a lie; it's a trick, but it's a dishonest representation of the situation, all the same.
You could equally say that a Cheetah running at 20kph is "fast" and a tortoise doing 15kph is "slow", but that also ignores the context.
That's a silly analogy. You could say that a cheetah is faster (pays more tax) than a tortoise (pays less tax) because that would actually relate to less/more.
It's not a trick, or dishonest. "Pays more tax" means you pay more money to the government in taxation than someone else. You count up one pile and then count up another pile and compare them.
This spin is an insidious plan to normalise the idea of a flat tax (because that would be "fair", wouldn't it? Everyone paying "the same"?).
Apart from the fact that no one has seriously proposed flat income tax in NZ for 20 something years.
It would be good to remember that while GST is a flat tax, one of the reasons for having it is that it spreads the tax base and catches "rich pricks" like farmers and the self-employed who are able to write off every expense they've ever incurred in order to avoid paying income tax. If anyone can think of a good way to progressive-ise it I'm all in favour, but I'm not sure progressive sales tax is practical.
-
3410,
Apart from the fact that no one has seriously proposed flat income tax in NZ for 20 something years.
Oh, 20-something years ago, when the top tax rate was 66%?
Are you kidding? They're flattening it now, have done once already, and, if Bill English is to be believed, have yet another round planned.
It would be a refreshing novelty. You can start.
Okay, just let me wipe off the sarcasm again...
Right. The tax plan is, according to the PM, based on the idea that currently New Zealand's wealthiest people do not currently have the resources to be able to productively invest in NZ, and that if we don't look out, many will be forced overseas. I'm almost more offended that they expect me to believe that than I am by the policy itself.
-
Right. The tax plan is, according to the PM, based on the idea that currently New Zealand's wealthiest people do not currently have the resources to be able to productively invest in NZ, and that if we don't look out, many will be forced overseas. I'm almost more offended that they expect me to believe that than I am by the policy itself.
They already do have the resources. Problem is, they've gone into McMansions (and maybe Range Rovers too) instead of software companies.
-
Our personal understanding of words like "more" and "fair" are influenced by underlying beliefs about success and why some people have more wealth and income and opportunities than others.
As some observers have been saying for many moons, tomorrow's tax changes are likely to disproportionately benefit the top 8% of personal taxpayers. Because that is associated with govt service increases below the rate of inflation and population growth, cuts of $3.8bn to existing programmes, 1500 fewer public servants already and a change in GST (whose regressiveness I am not going to argue with anyone), it seems obvious that less wealthy New Zealanders will not do so well out of this. Property tax changes may complicate the picture, especially for those on middle rather than really high incomes.
It seems perfectly consistent with the overall belief that rich people deserve more money to reward them and to motivate them to be more successful and that this is the best way to make the nation "successful". We had that neo-liberal mantra played out here during the 15 years from 1984 to 1999 - so we can each see whether that worked in the way we personally and collectively understand "success".
Politically, tax changes to advantage the rich will come as no surprise to anyone who has previously watched the Nats in action. Their first round of tax changes after election was quietly biased towards top personal tax-payers, which was drowned out by the global meltdown storm.
However the focus of these next changes has only been admitted explicitly by this govt in the last few days after months of denial - and in the form of Key's rather defensive statement akin to "don't hate me because I'm beautiful" along with all the associated braying from the sewer about the "politics of envy".
It's an enduring theme at Budget time as the story is re-woven to justify the cuts to public services that are on the way so that the richest New Zealanders get to keep more of their money. The Hotchin family's cake-eating lifestyle even gets some attention today from Fran O'Sullivan. And the tall poppy defense is rolled out by well-known business analyst and deep thinker Mike Hosking.
This late burst of honesty may affect the way the governing party's trustworthiness is perceived by voters (although frankly they're politicians so what did we expect).
Comes down to two questions for me. Are they doing what we expected of them? Is that the right thing?
Must say I had no idea there was such a word as "pelf" - from the Old French word for "booty". Thanks, Craig.
-
If the government were really serious about this country's economic performance, why not cut company tax rates, hugely increase investment funds and business and export support programmes? And enforce existing regulations to make rich individuals pay all their due tax (rather than reducing and aligning the tax rates to 'incentivise' them to do so, like few other countries have felt compelled to do).
Shift the balance towards productive investment rather than personal consumption. Trickle down is so discredited it's hard to see why "cut rich company owners' personal taxes" as the big answer is not being laughed at loudly by journalists.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.