Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Rik, one could see the Cullen fund and Kiwisaver as laying the groundwork for a transition to a more Australian-type regime. That is, compulsory contribution out of earnings, and means-tested social security for those who haven't saved enough.
However, I imagine that if Labour were to join those particular dots, history would repeat itself.
-
OnPoint: It's real, in reply to Rik,
Are there enough incentives for those on benefits to get off them?
For one thing, the biggest benefit going is national super (citation). Currently we don’t incentivise old people to die, but I don’t think we should change that.
For another, numbers on other benefits change more or less in sync with the wider economy. This suggests strongly that when jobs are available, people take them. I don’t know what Farrar’s mendacious graph tells you about this one way or the other though – seems like a non sequitur even to bring this up.
-
OnPoint: It's real, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
After the way Jim Mora let Farrar go unchecked yesterday afternoon, I feel the Left is entitled to a pass on that one.
-
Rik, seems like you think that taxing the rich means taxing you, but on the other hand you don't think you are rich. Which implies that you think other people have a lower threshold for "rich" than you do. Yes?
Personally, I think being rich is more about having enough assets to live off your savings for an extended period, than having a high income, but that seems to be an uncommon view.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Rik,
I don’t know the first thing about accounting
I honestly think that if you’re self-employed, that is a bad position to be in. Apart from saving the fees, you can’t evaluate whether your accountant is any good. You’re in business now, and that means you really need to know this stuff. When I was contracting, I paid an accountant (less than you) to deal with my income tax, but on any given day I could have run the numbers myself. At that time, by the way, the accountant was a luxury I could afford, given that I was making rather more than you two.
I’d also wonder at the extent to which your various vehicle, insurance and housing expenses ought to be claimed. Do you have a home office? A mobile phone for business? How much of your expenses are business expenses? This could make a big difference to your bottom line. Your example actually is much more complicated and vague than one for a salaried person paying PAYE, since it’s impossible to tell what your net income is or your personal vs business expenses. I appreciate that you’re obfuscating for privacy reasons, but I do hope you personally have a better handle on this than shown in the example.
You seem to be doing a great job on food costs. No criticism there, in fact I’d like to know how you manage.
Given the cost of childcare and travel there and back, are you actually paying for the privilege of both of you working?
It’s very hard to assess how much fat you have without further clarification. I do agree that it seems like there isn’t much left over as you lay it out. I’m sorry it’s hard to make concrete suggestions without asking intrusive questions. There may only be 1800 of obvious suggestions, but there isn’t enough detail provided to say otherwise. At any rate, if 1800 doesn’t matter to you, you can give it to me.
Incidentally, Google tells me there has been exactly one “rich prick” observation in this thread before our present exchange, by Damian, here, in what I would call a jocular tone.
-
I don’t think owning a slightly-too-small property in a low income suburb is “inflated”. It was well within the means of even poor people of my parents generation.
Two things have happened. First, there’s more than 30% more people here than when I was born (1970). A house of the same standard, if we include garden area, is much more sought after than when my parents were buying. And then we’ve had a property bubble that is yet to fully deflate. Affordability has improved, but is still well above the historic average. So yeah, I guess your dreams (and mine) aren’t unreasonable, but the price we have to pay to achieve them relative to our incomes is genuinely higher than we might think if parity with our parents is our measure.
-
What Gio said. I fear that a lot of people in the >100K area have either not acquired the money management skills of previous generations, or have inflated ideas of what a normal standard of living is.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Damian Christie,
A few observations about Farrar’s data.
1. It only counts income tax. Not GST, excise or other taxes. Such a table would look different if it were about all tax paid. It seems odd to omit those other taxes, since the benefits alluded to are not paid solely out of income tax. It’s almost as though someone was trying to produce a skewed result…
2. The disproportionate contribution of very high earners is precisely a result of the unusually high income inequality we have in this country. Yet measures to increase incomes – higher minimum wage, tax incentives to improve worker productivity, improved worked training and education – are typically poopooed by the Nats.
3. The “net” part is net of benefits paid or tax credits given, which appears to be unemployment benefit etc, super (don’t forget superannuation is the biggest benefit going, why does Farrar hate the old?), WFF, etc. As if we don’t all get major benefits from living in a stable state with a nationalised healthcare system, free education, maintained roads, yadda yadda. Farrar omits all the things paid out of taxes that high earners benefit from too. Wow, I wonder why.
4. Who cares? For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. People who earn a lot, very largely are able to do so because of the rest of the community. Look at the top 17%, look at the bottom 17%. Who is living the best life? What kind of definition of fairness tells you that the top 17% are the victims of the bottom?
-
Hard News: A nation bullied, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Rob, email me and I'll send you a draft now.
-
Tamsin lurched under the force of her boss' wrath.
"Understand this. We deal with time. We deal with space. We deal with catastrophe, inconsistency, and aquatic mammals who aren't where they should be. Our scope is fucking enormous. It's a huge manor, T."