Possible new tax law

[king1]

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

lol, so twice your contributions?

[Lilith7]

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.

"As far as possible."

---

TAX THE RICH!

Definitely they should be paying their fair share, rather than doing their best to avoid that.

[Wainuiguy]

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.

"As far as possible."

---

TAX THE RICH!

Definitely they should be paying their fair share, rather than doing their best to avoid that.

Those on the highest incomes pay 30% of all income tax - that is more than fair.

---

Which is worth about 0.5c worth, probably less

lol, so twice your contributions?

I believe my contributions, like anyone's here, are worth the same amount.

[Lilith7]

There's no shortage of evidence of wealthy people seeking - & finding - ways to avoid paying tax.

I expect you could always google that.

[king1]

"As far as possible."

---

Definitely they should be paying their fair share, rather than doing their best to avoid that.

Those on the highest incomes pay 30% of all income tax - that is more than fair.

it's also fair that the folks paying the other 70% would like to know that the tax paid by the wealthy is fair as well.

This isn't a money grab from those poor hard up wealthy individuals, it is simply fact finding to obtain data - data that some, I might add, seem not to want to see the light of day... could be a conspiracy in there...

[Wainuiguy]

Those on the highest incomes pay 30% of all income tax - that is more than fair.

it's also fair that the folks paying the other 70% would like to know that the tax paid by the wealthy is fair as well.

This isn't a money grab from those poor hard up wealthy individuals, it is simply fact finding to obtain data - data that some, I might add, seem not to want to see the light of day...

As previously stated, many of that 70%, after allowance for tax credits etc, pay no tax whatsoever.  In fact may actually draw more than they pay.

[king1]

it's also fair that the folks paying the other 70% would like to know that the tax paid by the wealthy is fair as well.

This isn't a money grab from those poor hard up wealthy individuals, it is simply fact finding to obtain data - data that some, I might add, seem not to want to see the light of day...

As previously stated, many of that 70%, after allowance for tax credits etc, pay no tax whatsoever.  In fact may actually draw more than they pay.

which is completely irrelevant in the context of whether the wealthy are paying their fair share,  or concealing it, which is the purpose of the review...

[Magoo]

the top 10% of income tax payers
contribute almost half of the total income tax take.

anything more seems a bit penurious and more like a penalty than a tax.

[Wainuiguy]

the top 10% of income tax payers
contribute almost half of the total income tax take.

anything more seems a bit penurious and more like a penalty than a tax.

Shit man you better back that up with some links.

---

As previously stated, many of that 70%, after allowance for tax credits etc, pay no tax whatsoever.  In fact may actually draw more than they pay.

which is completely irrelevant in the context of whether the wealthy are paying their fair share,  or concealing it, which is the purpose of the review...

No it isn't- perhaps we should see if everyone's paying their fair share.

[king1]

If they don't have the full picture of peoples income (why exactly that is, is another story) then they can't truly know what the scope of the problem is - it is pointless making decisions or claims without all the facts.

What would happen if this research discovered that 50% of the uber wealthy are under reporting their income by a factor of five? Without the data we don't know...

We would all have been subsidizing them, including the other 50% 'wealthy', in terms of lost government revenue and services (say for example drugs) the country couldn't afford.

[king1]

which is completely irrelevant in the context of whether the wealthy are paying their fair share,  or concealing it, which is the purpose of the review...

No it isn't- perhaps we should see if everyone's paying their fair share.

imagine the uproar about wasteful government spending, some folks would have a field day on that... Data gathering, that's all...

[Magoo]

Wainuiguy
Shit man you better back that up with some links.

how long have you been here?
i dont have links, i dont do research
if its in my head its right.
why would i waste brain cells on misinformation?

ffs then...go on then. fill your boots
but you better fucken read it or im never posting another one.

im too lazy to read it, so im bloody hopeful im on point


https://www.inequality.org.nz/understand...y-pay-tax/

---

its important to differentiate income tax from general tax
taxing the wealthy and taxing the top income earners is two different precepts.
even though the the top earners are by default going to be wealthy, the inverse does not hold
where the wealthy might not be top income earners.
we get the wealthy with estate taxes taxes on interest, taxes on the income of a myriad of sources like shares bonds etc
we get the high earners with paye.

[harm_less]

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 disguise their investment income with tax advantages in regard to their benefit security.

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.

Yes I did mention aged care in the post that this discussion is related to. What else did you construe aged care to mean if not rest home care?

[Wainuiguy]

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.

Yes I did mention aged care in the post that this discussion is related to. What else did you construe aged care to mean if not rest home care?

I was referring to the fact you mentioned Super - super is not means or asset tested as you appeared to imply.  Potentially if you work out tax wrong you may have a tax bill to pay at the end of the year but that is different from suggesting a means or asset test.

Did you find the reference to the 5 Mil?  Or too hard to Google again?

---

Wainuiguy
Shit man you better back that up with some links.

how long have you been here?
i dont have links, i dont do research
if its in my head its right.
why would i waste brain cells on misinformation?

ffs then...go on then. fill your boots
but you better fucken read it or im never posting another one.

im too lazy to read it, so im bloody hopeful im on point


https://www.inequality.org.nz/understand...y-pay-tax/

---

its important to differentiate income tax from general tax
taxing the wealthy and taxing the top income earners is two different precepts.
even though the the top earners are by default going to be wealthy, the inverse does not hold
where the wealthy might not be top income earners.
we get the wealthy with estate taxes taxes on interest, taxes on the income of a myriad of sources like shares bonds etc
we get the high earners with paye.

I actually read it - but was only kidding posting a link.  

And yes in some things you are right.  A person with large assets may not have a large income - I.e. asset rich but cash poor.  Many people may be in that situation now with investment income being reduced to nothing.  Meaning they may need to draw on capital to keep their lifestyle.

This review is, as the expert I posted said,  just being set to change to narrative.  Designed to soften the public to allow for other taxes to be introduced so that those who have significant assets and generate wealth via capital gain can be taxed against that.  Trouble is they will talk about "making the rich pay their fair share" which most will say is a good idea except what may happen is a change will be introduced to capture those gains but will also capture others in the mix too, others who you would not define as "Uber wealthy "  or even "wealthy".

A perfect example of this was the changes to the Brightline test.  Taking it from 4 to 10 years created a CGT in all but name and a CGT with  39% tax.  The test was designed to capture those who bought and sold houses quickly such as flippers.  Now it is catching people selling their beach house, people moving for work, estates etc.  This is not what the intent behind the test was ever for.

And now a couple of stories in the last few days where these tax principals if they were in place as Parker broadly outlined may actually mean recent changes to tax laws would violate those very principals- the 2 examples used being the brightline test and the changes to deductibility tor landlords.  Again experts suggested both those things would violate the principals as outlined.  Obviously hard to say as the law has not been written but this was based on what Parker laid out.

[harm_less]

Yes I did mention aged care in the post that this discussion is related to. What else did you construe aged care to mean if not rest home care?

I was referring to the fact you mentioned Super - super is not means or asset tested as you appeared to imply.  Potentially if you work out tax wrong you may have a tax bill to pay at the end of the year but that is different from suggesting a means or asset test.

Did you find the reference to the 5 Mil?  Or too hard to Google again?

Implication being just another way of saying reading only what you want to into content. If one's tax status denies you retaining a portion of a benefit, in this discussion superannuation, then the additional tax payable on that benefit can be regarded as reclamation of that benefit in part which indicates in essence that you're not eligible to receive the full amount. And that's not about working out your tax wrong so much as a disadvantage caused by unwise allocation of your asset base. An excessive tax burden is just the long term result.

And the $5 million you implied to be Parker's taxable income whereas it was only the sum allocated to pay for the study he is undertaking on this matter. Didn't need to Google it as it could be gleaned from the posts in this thread.

[king1]

And the $5 million you implied to be Parker's taxable income whereas it was only the sum allocated to pay for the study he is undertaking on this matter. Didn't need to Google it as it could be gleaned from the posts in this thread.

yeah but someone still had to google it though - It would be so much easier if people just explained what they mean better and maybe a reference, instead of expecting everyone else to do the leg work... It's kind of like telling a joke but only leading with the punchline - out of context and makes no sense...