Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Damian Christie,
Sometimes its created by having a fucking good idea that lots of people want, hopefully lots of overseas people. And we could use more of these types of people, and we could use more of them staying here too I reckon.
And this justifies taxing them less than the entreprenurs of thirty years ago? Why? Were has slashing their taxes got us? Are our CEOs better, our companies substantially smarter? Does the economy as a whole do better? Have we kept pace with Australia, where neoliberal reforms weren't pursued as aggressively?
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Martin Roberts,
Nobody seems to have questioned the idea that the President has to be paid the mostest.
Good luck disabusing people of that notion.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Rik,
At 33% that comes in at $561,000 in tax for Paul Reynolds and $3,300 for the teacher. So who got stiffed?
Neither. The teacher can afford to pay the taxes levied from her, and should. The CEO of Telecom can afford to pay a lot more taxes than he does, and still be super-rich, and should. Because redistribution of wealth is good, because being part of a society than can look after the weakest is good for Paul Reynolds as well. And because we just passed tax cuts for the rich so that we could raise GST and make groceries more expensive to those at the bottom. It's elementary decency.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Hilary Stace,
I think this is a good time to remember NZ’s welfare state, particularly Giovanni’s consideration of it.
"To place the claims of welfare before those of wealth". Those were the days, huh?
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Stephen Judd,
Do we miss Douglas Myers?
I don't, but then all I have to do is look at his poster on my wall, so.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Damian Christie,
I think what you’re confusing it with is Progressive tax
I chose to confuse it with progressive tax to put a charitable spin on what you said. Because “I’m not against proportional taxation” means you’re not against the thing that even the ACT party isn’t against. And personally I don’t think that “I’m not actually to the right of Roger Douglas, but…” is a very useful or informative way to start a conversation.
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.
It would be interesting to have a conversation on whether this view belongs or not on Public Address (personally I think it does), but it certainly reflects the prevalent ideology. It used to be that the money you made belonged to the community, the economy in which you made it because, well, for one thing it was literally true: very few people’s wealth-making ability was actually portable – you couldn’t easily leave the country and take it with you, or if you could, it would be by creating another set of interdependencies in a similar society (besides, there were actual barriers to exporting capital and equipment). Now things have changed, there is globalisation, there is the endless cycle of outsourcing labour, and so a perception has become ingrained – although to be sure it’s still far in excess of reality – that if you’re at the top your work is your own, it’s got nothing to do with the work of others, and the money you make is your money, it doesn’t result from the exploitation of anybody (since the people at the bottom are infinitely replaceable, and they are practically begging to be exploited anyhow).
In most industrialised countries in the last forty years the average pay of a CEO to that of a salaried worker has increased several fold. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate in the United States was over 70%. Now it’s 35%. So the richer got immensely richer and at the same time they are contributing less to their societies. Is that right? I think it isn’t. But it’s not how conversations of this kind are generally framed on Public Address, is it? We’re all about what good it does. And so let’s not talk about right or wrong, let’s talk about outcomes. You say why do we need to expand the revenue base? Here’s a few reasons: our welfare system, which has been bleeding for over twenty years, is under attack. We have shocking child poverty statistics. Our support for people with intellectual disabilities or mental illnesses is pitiful. Welfare benefits are set 20% below the poverty line. I fully realise that middle class New Zealand liberals are past masters at not giving a shit about any of that, but I say we can do better.
So let’s go back to taxing CEOs like we did in 1980, when they earned far less money in relation to the rest of the population than they do now, and let’s use the money to reverse some of that shameful heritage from the years of Richardson and Douglas. Is it going to work? No, I don’t think so. But then neither is not taxing them. And at least the extra social spending is going to buy us some time, and dull the pain of neoliberalism a little bit, put a little more food on a few more tables. I’m all for that.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Rich of Observationz,
You wanna see the people already paying by far the lion’s share of the tax all fuck off overseas?
Yes.
+1. The myth that these people would be hard to replace is... a myth.
why should *any* teachers be in the same tax bracket as Telecom’s CEO? It’s nutty.
My point exactly. Building up for big post on the other thing now.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Rich of Observationz,
but 97% of teachers (being in salary group 4 or below) make less than $50k base, so are very unlikely to get to $70k.
There are teachers in the top tax bracket. Like I said.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Damian Christie,
@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.
That’s not proportional taxation. Unless the alternative to proportional taxation was something like “everybody pays $10,000 a year into this coffer, regardless of how much they earn”. It seems that your against levying a poll tax and GST as the only means of raising revenue, which is not exactly terribly progressive of you. We’re talking the current system at best, which is neoliberal trickle down, ACT’s flat rate at worst.
(Answer to the second point you raise coming later this morning as regrettably I have to leave the house).
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Moz,
having teachers in the same tax bracket at the CEO of Telecom sounds like an excellent plan to me.
Now that you mention it, to me too.