Possible new tax law

[Oh_hunnihunni]

TAX THE RICH!

[king1]

ok not sure how relevant a 2013 article is going to be these days, but I see that it is trying to factor in the effects of FTC, AS, GST as well.  The Treasury values are only reflecting income tax.  

But i'm happy to make the following changes and remove the CM 

Is it fair that 5% of taxpayers pay 25% of all the tax?  ==>> Is it fair that 5% of taxpayers pay 30% of all income tax?

Is it fair that 50% of taxpayers pay no tax whatsoever?  ==>> Is it fair that 6% of taxpayers pay no income tax whatsoever?  

With the link to 
https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information...income-tax

The 50% number paying no tax is about those that pay tax but then have it given back as various tax credits and benefits.

so the statement is somewhat out of context.  There is nothing in either of those articles to suggest that is the case but if you can find me a substantiated link to suggest it is the case we can modify to include something like 'in effect, pay no tax after offsetting various tax credits and benefits.' . it makes sense it would offset the number 

[Wainuiguy]

TAX THE RICH!

They do.  30% of tax paid is paid by that 5%.

[Magoo]

wait what? we have to back up statements with facts?
when did that start? im doomed
what so no making shit up? no altering stuff to suit my narrative?
no embellishments?
am i going to have to post a photo of my appendage to verify those stats?

oh dear

[king1]

wait what? we have to back up statements with facts?
when did that start?  im doomed
what so no making shit up? no altering stuff to suit my narrative?
no embellishments? 
am i going to have to post a photo of my appendage to verify those stats?

oh dear

I don't think anyone is going to need you to prove that Magoo - OK maybe one or two...

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Okay don't tax them. Bring on the revolution instead.

[Wainuiguy]

https://youtu.be/L-0-ThcB9_I

A good clip from the AM show today. This is a softening up to introduce either wealth tax, CGT or both - as the expert said the government is trying to change the narrative. Hoping that people will think that the tax system is unfair even though is taxes everyone's income exactly the same way from a beneficiary to John Hart.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

To each according to his need, from each according to his ability... Misquote from dear old Karl Marx before he went bad...

That'd be fair too.

[harm_less]

https://youtu.be/L-0-ThcB9_I

A good clip from the AM show today.  This is a softening up to introduce either  wealth tax, CGT or both  - as the expert said the government is trying to change the narrative.  Hoping that people will think that the tax system is unfair even though is taxes everyone's income exactly the same way from a beneficiary to John Hart.

What is obvious from that discussion is that the average New Zealander very much thinks in an 'us and them' basis in terms of taxation. As any company owner knows their business is an entity separate from themselves which is taxed in its own right. If your company's trading year has been profitable it is then beneficial to transfer those profits to the entity that will be taxed least on them. If say one of the business's partners/directors has income from another source such as wages or salary then the amount that is to be allocated to that person should be limited so as to prevent raising that person's annual income into higher tax bracket. The inverse applies for a director that derives their income solely from that business.

Another method for minimising tax burden is to reduce company profits by purchase of major assets which in turn can contribute to business costs (losses) over time as those assets depreciate. That is the reason that many companies and also sole traders replace their vehicles just prior to the end of the financial year.

The same principal applies for simple family owned companies (such as the 'family farm') it does for as for large corporations.

The use of trusts, particularly in respect to family related assets, is also primarily to reduce tax burdens for those accumulating those asset bases and the use of trusts is widespread among far more than just the wealthy. The eligibility for superannuation and aged care contributions can be significantly improved if the person's financial worth has been siphoned off into a trust.

The adoption of a CGT would be one of the fairest and most simply exacted of any wealth tax. It would capture properties owned by individuals and trusts which otherwise are commonly treated as non-taxable investments. It would also bring these into line with business owned properties which are already taxed within company taxation structures.

[Wainuiguy]

https://youtu.be/L-0-ThcB9_I

A good clip from the AM show today.  This is a softening up to introduce either  wealth tax, CGT or both  - as the expert said the government is trying to change the narrative.  Hoping that people will think that the tax system is unfair even though is taxes everyone's income exactly the same way from a beneficiary to John Hart.

What is obvious from that discussion is that the average New Zealander very much thinks in an 'us and them' basis in terms of taxation. As any company owner knows their business is an entity separate from themselves which is taxed in its own right. If your company's trading year has been profitable it is then beneficial to transfer those profits to the entity that will be taxed least on them. If say one of the business's partners/directors has income from another source such as wages or salary then the amount that is to be allocated to that person should be limited so as to prevent raising that person's annual income into higher tax bracket. The inverse applies for a director that derives their income solely from that business.

Another method for minimising tax burden is to reduce company profits by purchase of major assets which in turn can contribute to business costs (losses) over time as those assets depreciate. That is the reason that many companies and also sole traders replace their vehicles just prior to the end of the financial year.

The same principal applies for simple family owned companies (such as the 'family farm') it does for as for large corporations.

The use of trusts, particularly in respect to family related assets, is also primarily to reduce tax burdens for those accumulating those asset bases and the use of trusts is widespread among far more than just the wealthy. The eligibility for superannuation and aged care contributions can be significantly improved if the person's financial worth has been siphoned off into a trust.

The adoption of a CGT would be one of the fairest and most simply exacted of any wealth tax. It would capture properties owned by individuals and trusts which otherwise are commonly treated as non-taxable investments. It would also bring these into line with business owned properties which are already taxed within company taxation structures.

Except Ardern has ruled out a CGT while she is PM. Mind you wouldn't be the first lie she has told.   Publicly it started with the ultimate lie - I have never lied as a politician.

None of what you described is illegal.  The government set the rules around companies and trusts so of course people use those rules.  Are you saying you don't let your accountant assist you in maximizing your businesses profits in similar ways?

BTW super is not impacted by your assets or secondary income from investments.

---

To each according to his need, from each according to his ability... Misquote from dear old Karl Marx before he went bad...

That'd be fair too.

Good old Karl Marx.  Came up with a workers utopia - how'd that work out for him?  And for around 50 million of his countrymen?

A place where all me are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[king1]

as I understand the the government's intention at the moment is to collect more data, for more informed decision making down the track...

Can't see anything wrong with that, although I could see how those that are having data collected about themselves might be a bit anxious,  if they had something to hide... 
 
The problem is not with the wealthy folks doing things by the book, the problem is with those that choose to, either deliberately or because it is 'legal' under current law, mask their true incomes...

But fact finding can't be a bad thing...

[Wainuiguy]

as I understand the the government's intention at the moment is to collect more data, for more informed decision making down the track...

Can't see anything wrong with that, although I could see how those that are having data collected about themselves might be a bit anxious,  if they had something to hide...

So Parker got his $5 mil last year and in that time he has written a speech about unfairness in the tax system.  Money well spent there.

[harm_less]

What is obvious from that discussion is that the average New Zealander very much thinks in an 'us and them' basis in terms of taxation. As any company owner knows their business is an entity separate from themselves which is taxed in its own right. If your company's trading year has been profitable it is then beneficial to transfer those profits to the entity that will be taxed least on them. If say one of the business's partners/directors has income from another source such as wages or salary then the amount that is to be allocated to that person should be limited so as to prevent raising that person's annual income into higher tax bracket. The inverse applies for a director that derives their income solely from that business.

Another method for minimising tax burden is to reduce company profits by purchase of major assets which in turn can contribute to business costs (losses) over time as those assets depreciate. That is the reason that many companies and also sole traders replace their vehicles just prior to the end of the financial year.

The same principal applies for simple family owned companies (such as the 'family farm') it does for as for large corporations.

The use of trusts, particularly in respect to family related assets, is also primarily to reduce tax burdens for those accumulating those asset bases and the use of trusts is widespread among far more than just the wealthy. The eligibility for superannuation and aged care contributions can be significantly improved if the person's financial worth has been siphoned off into a trust.

The adoption of a CGT would be one of the fairest and most simply exacted of any wealth tax. It would capture properties owned by individuals and trusts which otherwise are commonly treated as non-taxable investments. It would also bring these into line with business owned properties which are already taxed within company taxation structures.

Except Ardern has ruled out a CGT while she is PM. Mind you wouldn't be the first lie she has told.   Publicly it started with the ultimate lie - I have never lied as a politician.

None of what you described is illegal.  The government set the rules around companies and trusts so of course people use those rules.  Are you saying you don't let your accountant assist you in maximizing your businesses profits in similar ways?

BTW super is not impacted by your assets or secondary income from investments.

The PM's stance on CGT is a difficulty but implementing a similar taxation regime by another title would solve that and is more likely than not IMO.

Nowhere did I claim that any of what I described was illegal. My point was that the practice of minimising one's tax burden is not just the territory of the 'big boys' so any change that affects big business needs to ensure it doesn't disadvantage small businesses.

And so far as income earned in addition to superannuation is concerned the tax reckoning occurs at the end of the year when total income is tallied up, benefits and all, so a portion of that superannuation can often be paid back as a result. Aged care eligibility is asset tested with the limit being $239,930. Anyone involved in rest home care situations are all too aware that some well heeled elderly avoid this threshold by way of their assets having been migrated into trusts. This also serves to disquise their investment income with tax advantages in regard to their benefit security.

---

as I understand the the government's intention at the moment is to collect more data, for more informed decision making down the track...

Can't see anything wrong with that, although I could see how those that are having data collected about themselves might be a bit anxious,  if they had something to hide...

So Parker got his $5 mil last year and in that time he has written a speech about unfairness in the tax system.  Money well spent there.

Did you pull that number out of thin air? Proof please.

[king1]

as I understand the the government's intention at the moment is to collect more data, for more informed decision making down the track...

Can't see anything wrong with that, although I could see how those that are having data collected about themselves might be a bit anxious,  if they had something to hide...

So Parker got his $5 mil last year and in that time he has written a speech about unfairness in the tax system.  Money well spent there.

yes $5 mil to write a speech... Money well spent there...

I believe it was $5 million over two years, and the money was for the research and collection of data, which I imagine would involves a chunk of changes to IT systems at Treasury and IRD etc to actually collect the data.  So not unreasonable...

But I'm sure you already new that...

[king1]

Except Ardern has ruled out a CGT while she is PM. Mind you wouldn't be the first lie she has told.   Publicly it started with the ultimate lie - I have never lied as a politician.

I don't know I can agree with the lies part, the threshold for a blatant lie is right up there, Scott Morrison kind of level.

Now catching someone out stretching the truth is fairly commonplace these days...  Politicians are generally known for their spin, right up there with used car salesman, so probably not really a big surprise...  bit of an irony you would bring this up...

However, I think at the moment at least, I feel a bit more comfortable trusting Prime Minister Ardern to do the right thing by New Zealand(ers) than I would any of the other agenda driven, backroom dealing, looking out for their own ilk, former and current Nat leaders...  just my 2c

[Praktica]

Wainuiboy is starting to betray his biases - I bet he gets his "hot takes" from Kiwiblog.

[Olive]

**starting to** happened at the start of his posting.

[Wainuiguy]

Except Ardern has ruled out a CGT while she is PM. Mind you wouldn't be the first lie she has told.   Publicly it started with the ultimate lie - I have never lied as a politician.

I don't know I can agree with the lies part, the threshold for a blatant lie is right up there, Scott Morrison kind of level.

Now catching someone out stretching the truth is fairly commonplace these days...  Politicians are generally known for their spin, right up there with used car salesman, so probably not really a big surprise...  bit of an irony you would bring this up...

However, I think at the moment at least, I feel a bit more comfortable trusting Prime Minister Ardern to do the right thing by New Zealand(ers) than I would any of the other agenda driven, backroom dealing, looking out for their own ilk, former and current Nat leaders...  just my 2c

Which is worth about 0.5c worth, probably less

---

Wainuiboy is starting to betray his biases - I bet he gets his "hot takes" from Kiwiblog.

And, like you often are, you'd be wrong.

---

Except Ardern has ruled out a CGT while she is PM. Mind you wouldn't be the first lie she has told.   Publicly it started with the ultimate lie - I have never lied as a politician.

None of what you described is illegal.  The government set the rules around companies and trusts so of course people use those rules.  Are you saying you don't let your accountant assist you in maximizing your businesses profits in similar ways?

BTW super is not impacted by your assets or secondary income from investments.

The PM's stance on CGT is a difficulty but implementing a similar taxation regime by another title would solve that and is more likely than not IMO.

Nowhere did I claim that any of what I described was illegal. My point was that the practice of minimising one's tax burden is not just the territory of the 'big boys' so any change that affects big business needs to ensure it doesn't disadvantage small businesses.

And so far as income earned in addition to superannuation is concerned the tax reckoning occurs at the end of the year when total income is tallied up, benefits and all, so a portion of that superannuation can often be paid back as a result. Aged care eligibility is asset tested with the limit being $239,930. Anyone involved in rest home care situations are all too aware that some well heeled elderly avoid this threshold by way of their assets having been migrated into trusts. This also serves to disquise their investment income with tax advantages in regard to their benefit security.

---

So Parker got his $5 mil last year and in that time he has written a speech about unfairness in the tax system.  Money well spent there.

Did you pull that number out of thin air? Proof please.

Widely reported.  In fact may have even been mentioned in the article attached to the OP.  And I didn't mention rest home care - you did.

[Lilith7]

Because I've got better things to fill my time than research your BS. When I post it usually includes a link to back my claims. Just because you're too fucken lazy to do the same doesn't entitle you to enlist others to fact check you.

Busy lol.  

Google it - should take you all of 30 seconds.

---

Hardly a surprising reaction, though. There are some for whom anything done or even proposed, by this govt will always be wrong.

I think it might be interesting if we had a fairer tax system, & I wonder how many of those dead set against it would up sticks & bugger off to another country if that happened. Quite OK for others to pay their fair share(or preferably more) but they're none too keen on doing so themselves.

The older I get, the more I think we need to emulate as far as possible, those Scandinavian countries which have high taxes to cover education, health welfare, housing etc. etc. & whose people feature inevitably at the top of those 'happiest people' surveys.

Don't compare us to Sweden or Norway.  Both have significant natural resources they don't have issues using.

Try re reading it - I'm fairly sure I said 'as far as possible."


Other posters are permitted to hold different views to yours.

[Wainuiguy]

Busy lol.  

Google it - should take you all of 30 seconds.

---

Don't compare us to Sweden or Norway.  Both have significant natural resources they don't have issues using.

Try re reading it - I'm fairly sure I said 'as far as possible."


Other posters are permitted to hold different views to yours.

So in their over 60% tax levels?  And they can do that because they also have significant natural resources - not to mention access to 300 million people all within a few hours.