If the minimum wage, super and benefit increases are tied to inflation

[Wainuiguy]

Then why aren't increases in tax brackets?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/30...pp-android

[Oh_hunnihunni]

My question exactly. I'd like to see taxation increased in order to fight inflation rather than support it, primarily by applying it to income specifically not earned by work...

[Wainuiguy]

Labour loves tax bracket creep. Having someone on minimum wage moving into a higher tax bracket is just wrong.

My Dad had a worker who was excellent at his job and so sat him down said what a great job he was doing and then gave him a 10% wage increase. Thanks to increase in taxes and WFF he ended up WORSE OFF by $25 a week. How is that any incentive to better yourself or work hard?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Once again, exactly. If unearned income was taxed fairly, the burden on PAYE taxpayers would be lightened and the economy would be more balanced and more stable.

[king1]

wasn't there talk a year or two back about adjusting the tax brackets to match wage inflation? not sure who it was...
I know a couple who declined pay increases for a long while (in favour of perks) because they would end up losing on the deal. But I think that was more so because they would lose family support payments.

I can't see how you could lose money from the payrise just because you hit a higher tax bracket - you only get taxed at the higher rate for income over the respective tax brackets threshold, everything below that threshold is taxed at the lower rate of the lower tax bracket

[Olive]

wasn't there talk a year or two back about adjusting the tax brackets to match wage inflation? not sure who it was...
I know a couple who declined pay increases for a long while (in favour of perks) because they would end up losing on the deal.  But I think that was more so because they would lose family support payments.

I can't see how you could lose money from the payrise just because you hit a higher tax bracket - you only get taxed at the higher rate for income over the respective tax brackets threshold, everything below that threshold is taxed at the lower rate of the lower tax bracket

That's right.   The higher tax rate is applied only to the portion of income that exceeds the margin.   It's dismaying to see how many people, including journalists, don't understand marginal tax rates.

Only situation I can envisage where someone might have an overall loss after an income boost is if they were receiving income-tested benefits such as the accommodation supplement.  It would be pretty rare and the recipient would have been on a very low income.

[Wainuiguy]

wasn't there talk a year or two back about adjusting the tax brackets to match wage inflation? not sure who it was...
I know a couple who declined pay increases for a long while (in favour of perks) because they would end up losing on the deal.  But I think that was more so because they would lose family support payments.

I can't see how you could lose money from the payrise just because you hit a higher tax bracket - you only get taxed at the higher rate for income over the respective tax brackets threshold, everything below that threshold is taxed at the lower rate of the lower tax bracket

Here I copied a link for you to use:

https://www.universalclass.com/i/course/...on-101.htm

[king1]

wasn't there talk a year or two back about adjusting the tax brackets to match wage inflation? not sure who it was...
I know a couple who declined pay increases for a long while (in favour of perks) because they would end up losing on the deal.  But I think that was more so because they would lose family support payments.

I can't see how you could lose money from the payrise just because you hit a higher tax bracket - you only get taxed at the higher rate for income over the respective tax brackets threshold, everything below that threshold is taxed at the lower rate of the lower tax bracket

Here I copied a link for you to use:

https://www.universalclass.com/i/course/...on-101.htm

honestly, what was the point in that?  Grow up...

[harm_less]

honestly, what was the point in that?  Grow up...

This post by Wainuiguy has been deleted.

Your condescending trollish posting is becoming tiresome to more than just the mod's. It's just that we have the job of reacting to complaints from the better behaved majority of members.

You're travelling very close to a spell in the naughty corner unless you tidy up your act. Play nice!

[Olive]

Thank you for banning the whiny guy, he took up far too much oxygen and contributed nothing.

[king1]

Thank you for banning the whiny guy, he took up far too much oxygen and contributed nothing.

it's only 24 hours at this stage but no doubt he will come back swinging...

I believe he takes the dubious honour of being our first ever ban

[Magoo]

jolly poor form

[SueDonim]

wasn't there talk a year or two back about adjusting the tax brackets to match wage inflation? not sure who it was...
I know a couple who declined pay increases for a long while (in favour of perks) because they would end up losing on the deal.  But I think that was more so because they would lose family support payments.

I can't see how you could lose money from the payrise just because you hit a higher tax bracket - you only get taxed at the higher rate for income over the respective tax brackets threshold, everything below that threshold is taxed at the lower rate of the lower tax bracket

Here I copied a link for you to use:

https://www.universalclass.com/i/course/...on-101.htm

A reading comprehension course would be good for all those who doubt the vaccines and don't understand what's going on with the virus. Not sure about its relevance here though.

I know that we used to have a situation where people working could be worse off than those on the benefit but thought that it had been addressed. Is that what WFF was brought in for?

In the current situation, it does look like the increase in the minimum wage has created a mismatch in the tax brackets, and it would be good to have that addressed, along with the overall balance that "average" earners are probably also paying too much tax in our current tax bands. Ideas about taxing "unearned" income are problematic though. How do you define "unearned"? The retiree that busted their gut all their lives and put their savings into shares? Their current income might be unearned, but their lifetime effort surely means that it's earned. Shares and bank interest are about the only truly passive income I can think of. Some "mum and dad" property investors might get away with treating a single rental as passive if they pay tradies to do all their maintenance, and a property manager to manage it, but owners of multiple properties work for their reward, especially if they have the skills to DIY. And those with money sitting in shares of the bank are very vulnerable. How often have we heard the sob story about the pensioner who lost everything in shares? Or had the bank interest go down to nearly nothing as has happened recently? That has hit a lot of retirees who depended on savings. Is it fair to also tax them more on what they have left? I don't think so.

We already have a situation where the highest earners pay a disproportionate percentage of tax. We just need the balance to be right so that low and middle income earners are not penalised to the extent that it becomes pointless to work, or pointless to work harder.