Posts by DexterX
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Good for you.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Sacha,
Form the work I do which involves pricing and to stay in business a constant analysis of the trends in the costing of work in the wider market - when analysing a range of quotes in the period from late 2008 what I have found is, taking into account movements in the prices of materials, the cost of Labour is tracking significantly downward towards the minimum wage.
There is a reluctance to pay for quality.
That is the nature of the recession and retrenchment that is presently underway.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
The minimum wage in 1999 wasn't $6.50 - in 1997 it increased to around $8.40 and this was largely due to NZ First forcing the Nats to do this. This factor is one of the reasons that Shipley unseated Bolger and the coalition with NZ feel apart - the other was that the Nats wanted assets sales.
Labour hasn’t done as much as for workers in their 9 years as people blindly and willingly attribute to them. It is only now that they are out of office that they are seeking to connect with what one could regard as their base principles.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Sacha,
By pay for it I mean go and purchase goods or services from a concern that pays someone more than the minimum wage in comparison to another concern that provides a similar product and employs people at the minimum wage.
-
A few things that strike me about the "left" wanting to increase the minimum wage:
1) The Labour Coalition had 9 yeasr to do it and didn't, &2) People tend to support a $15 minimum wage up to a point and that point is when they have to pay for it.
-
In a similar manner you can see the shortcomings with Fletchers appointed to handle the Chch recovery – my view is an independent board with should have handled the matter with Fletchers and other interests contracting to it on a competitive basis.
-
The Nats will win the 2011 by the power of HYPNOTOSIS, refer to the technique used in the following you tube clip - it is game over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DU4TDGlbTz8#
The most underhand thing in the history of politics is at hand.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Steve Parks,
IIf shoudl be about increasing tax revenue then creating a framework the leads top expansion of the economy and that creates jobs and kifts wages is what should be done.
It should also be about reigning in wasteful expendiutre.
It is any easy an unproductive out to introduce another level of taxation or raise the rate of tax as they did with GST - which decreased the level of economic activity.
Ben Wilson poasted " CGT Mostly it's about closing another tax loophole that encourages a particularly unproductive behaviour that has made people rich" - Owning a residential pptty is not an unproductive behaviour - you provide accommodation and use services such as ppty maintenance etc and you do this in NZ.
I would regard an unproductive behaviour as the high % of Kiwi Saver $s that end up offshore.
Bearing in mind. Ben Wilson expressed no faith in innovation which was regarded as just a 'buzzword' I wonder if you or Ben actually have any positive ideas or insight on how to encourage economic growth that will expand GDP and create jobs?
Rents will increase with a CGT, this will be passed on and the demand for ppty and the demand for rentals will increase - the state of the domestic economy is such that resdiential building consents are at an all time low - so the current shortage will get worse.
. It appears the election is going to come down to a choice between Sale of SOEs (National Coalition) and Capital Gains Tax (Labour Coalition).
What a vacuous bunch they both are – neither appear to have any strategy that involves living within ones means (spending less) and encouraging expansion and growth of the economy that would actual increase the tax take – rather than the tax rates.
The tragedy is that thes two options are the best they can do.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Steve Barnes,
What was the "brilliant idea"?
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Steve Parks,
A landlord/investor considering the return derived from a ppty/investment will factor in any costs increases, which would include a CGT, into the return they are looking to receive.
A CGT would increase both the level of rent and the price of property.
The costs increase will always get passed down the pyramid to the base level - the renter and first homebuyer will bear the brunt of CGT.
There are a myriad of ways to avoid paying CGT – one that is pretty harsh on renters and involves a strategy where " a homeowner moves out of their primary residence, rents it out for a period of time, evict the renters, exchange for a new house, rent the new house out, evict the new renters, and then move into the new house thereby avoiding capital gains tax". Refer – (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States)
In Spain Capital Gains Tax is 18% for both residents and non-residents. If the proceeds are re-invested in another Spanish property within a 2 year period the CGT is not payable.
Increase to taxes be it income tax, consumption taxes, capital taxes always migrate down to the working poor, the people with greater income/resources are always able to structure their affiars so that they avoid or pass on any tax increase.
The answer does not lie in increasing the tax rate but by increasing the capacity of the producitve base of the economy such that there is growth in GDP and employment - an increase in the tax take is part of the answer.