Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Unfortunately Rich, $70k wasn't always the cut off point. How do you figures stack up at $60k?
http://www.ird.govt.nz/technical-tax/legislation/2005/2005-120/leg-2005-120-inc-tax-2005-06.html
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to
@Craig - but i still think it was a bad decision to leak it and let the opposition lead the conversation.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to
That’s not proportional taxation.
Uh yeah, that’s *exactly* what proportional taxation is. Ditto Danielle, proportional tax applies at all levels of income, even “shitloads”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_tax
I think what you’re confusing it with is Progressive tax. The opposite of which is regressive tax (i.e. a poll tax).
And yes, that’s what I’m in favour of (proportional) – I think the more money you earn, the more tax you should pay, but other than some low threshold levels to help with a minimum standard of living, I don’t agree with higher and higher rates at the upper levels. I simply don’t see what’s so evil about that.
And because of tax creep, even under Labour’s rich prick tax, in 2008 both many teachers and Telecom CEOs were being stung at the 39c rate. I dunno how many of those teachers felt they were earning “shitloads of money”
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to
And Prostetnic Vogon Joyce has just announced several Holiday Highway’s worth of pet projects.
Ahh, nothing like a Hitchikers reference to make me smile on a Friday morn...
-
@Giovanni - since you ask, yeah I'm absolutely in favour of the CEO of Telecom being in the same tax bracket as a teacher. Because under a proportional system, the CEO of Telecom pays a SHITLOAD more than the teacher, approximately $300,000 more for each million dollars he earns.
Hate to sound like I don't belong on Public Address, but I have a few issues with your phrase "we let the rich keep more of their money...", as it suggests it was never theirs to start with, that it's impossible to earn more than, say, $100,000, without your salary effectively ceasing to be yours, to be distributed at the whim of others.
I'm sure we both think people should pay their fair share, I just think my share happens to be fairer.
-
Yes, although as NZIER notes here, the 'rich-prick' tax is enough to cover that and the fresh fruit and vege.
http://nzier.org.nz/publications/getting-real-on-a-tax-free-threshold-nzier-insight-24
And good to note that my first comment would prove me wrong. Although to play the pedant, I don't know that they won because they promised a high marginal tax rate...
-
Again, you're assuming that everyone taking drugs is addicted, or that every drug is addictive. I know occasional P users, who are fine with it. I know people who have lost their lives due to P. The latter need to be treated for their health problems, I'm not convinced that the former need anything...
-
Hard News: What the kids do, in reply to
Apparently Hooky did the mix specially.
I thought you were kidding for a minute there, then googled it. What the...? Is he some anti-drug crusader then? Or just into making money? The reformed are always the worst, aren't they?
http://www.spinner.com/2009/07/21/peter-hook-lucky-to-survive-drug-filled-career
-
Hard News: What the kids do, in reply to
Such an important point. The majority of drug users use drugs not because they’re sick with anything, but because it’s fun
Yeah this is where I have an issue with the "let's treat it as a health problem not a criminal problem..." line of thinking - to an extent. Let's start with working out whether there's a problem in the first place, rather than assuming anyone who enjoys a little recreational mind bending is escaping from something. Or am I simply deluding myself?
-
Anyone know what the Joy Division remix was at the end of the trailer? I wonder what those boys would think of their song being used in that piece of crap...