Hard News: Reporting Afghanistan
111 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
I'm afraid the govt spin machine is not honouring Craig's sense of fairness - ad it's paying off. Today the tame journos at the Herald tell us that the budget is all about "socking it to the rich". Oh, and poor people - that nice Mr Key tells us you'll make out like bandits today. Yes, seriously, the kool aid is delicious.
-
I'm afraid the govt spin machine is not honouring Craig's sense of fairness - and it's paying off. Today the tame journos at the Herald tell us that the budget is all about "socking it to the rich". Oh, and poor people - that nice Mr Key tells us you'll make out like bandits today. Yes, seriously, the kool aid is delicious.
-
I'm afraid the govt spin machine is not honouring Craig's sense of fairness
Sacha: I'm kind of embarrased by all these years my partner and I've wasted not "dodging our tax obligations" like proper rich pricks.
And, yes, while I doubt the Budget is going to go as far as I'd like in dismantling the rentier welfare state something is better than nothing. And even No Right Turn is calling bullshit on Labour's spin that taxing landlords and property speculators is going to lead to renters being driven out to starve in the hedgerows.
-
Anyone else having trouble with the site? - I was trying to deal with that double post for so long the edit time expired.
-
Anyone else having trouble with the site?
No -- but I generally blame my crap connection and elderly equipment (you in the back, stop sniggering) for such whackness. :)
-
3410,
3410: No, I'm suggesting that there's nothing particularly useful in sneering generalisations about an ill-defined collective noun. It's knowledge, bro.
Oh, I despair. Now you're calling me prejudiced for being against tax evasion.
-
__3410: No, I'm suggesting that there's nothing particularly useful in sneering generalisations about an ill-defined collective noun. It's knowledge, bro.__
Now you're calling me prejudiced for being against tax evasion.
The original quote was:
Those with higher income are often the first to admit they pay their accountants to avoid paying taxes.
Whether or not it's sneering, or ill-defined, it's certainly a generalisation.
I suspect almost everyone tries to avoid paying taxes, for most of us it's just not worth paying an accountant to help us.
-
...the wealthy dodge their tax responsibilities
What's the definition of "the wealthy" in this context?
-
3410,
I suspect almost everyone tries to avoid paying taxes, for most of us it's just not worth paying an accountant to help us.
Really? Most people have only a wage or salary for income, so how?
What's the definition of "the wealthy" in this context?
In this context, it's those who should be in the top tax tier, but arrange their business / trust affairs so that that doesn't happen.
-
Oh, I despair. Now you're calling me prejudiced for being against tax evasion.
Bovine excrement, I am. Might help if you didn't treat "avoidance" and "evasion" as interchangeable synonyms, which they aren't in the context of a useful discussion of tax policy. I also had it explained to me in some detail by a editor, back in the day, that it's also a worthwhile distinction to keep in mind if you don't want to deal with the venerable firm of Sue, Grabbit and Runne. (Some folks are so touchy about being accused of criminal activity in the press. And fair enough too -- even nasty rich pricks are entitled not to be tried, convicted and hung via trial by media.)
-
Really? Most people have only a wage or salary for income, so how?
Self-employed taking cash, people working under the table, selling things as a job and not declaring it, work done under a barter system or trading work for work.
Also beneficiaries doing work not declaring their income are paying tax, but not telling MSD about their income etc. ACC recipients doing work that they're apparently not able to do while collecting ACC payments.
The idea that the rich are the only people who try and work the system to their best advantage is a little silly.
-
3410,
The idea that the rich are the only people who try and work the system to their best advantage is a little silly.
Well, I never quite said that. All your examples do happen, of course, but mostly people just work for an employer and pay their tax.
I guess we'll just have to disagree.
-
Might help if you didn't treat "avoidance" and "evasion" as interchangeable synonyms, which they aren't in the context of a useful discussion of tax policy.
That's right, I looked them up.
Avoidance, noun: tax evasion practiced by someone who can afford an accountant.
-
Self-employed taking cash, people working under the table, selling things as a job and not declaring it, work done under a barter system or trading work for work.
Also beneficiaries doing work not declaring their income are paying tax, but not telling MSD about their income etc. ACC recipients doing work that they're apparently not able to do while collecting ACC payments.
The idea that the rich are the only people who try and work the system to their best advantage is a little silly.
Nearly all of your examples are outright illegal, being tax evasion or fraud. Even barter is taxable, and work-for-work is arguably taxable.
There's a huge difference between using an accountant to structure your affairs such that they are making use of legal loopholes to minimise tax liability, and straight breaking the law. Using a trust/company to shelter income is legal, if dubious ethically. It's avoidance, not evasion. Not declaring income is evasion, which is a crime. Not telling WINZ about work you're getting paid for while collecting a benefit is fraud, as is getting paid for working while collecting ACC because you, supposedly, can't work.
-
Loving all the argument before the budget announcement.
I am hoping that those on lower incomes will be heartened by some tightening down on all the ways that the wealthier taxpayers avoid having to pay their share. If this can result in an increase in the tax-take from the upper income bracket and there is some easing of the lower thresholds then it could well be a positive move for those on low wages.
I just get my tax removed at source (PAYE) so it makes little difference to me, and I don't think any employment of an accountant to reduce my tax bill is either ethical or cost-effective.
As income tax is supposed to be paying for education, social welfare & health I don't really buy into the fuss around high income earners effectively paying a lower percentage as long as they are paying a higher $-amount.
Just getting some of them to pay any income tax would be good. -
Well, I never quite said that. All your examples do happen, of course, but mostly people just work for an employer and pay their tax.
I work for an employer full time and pay tax (and student loan and child support).
I've also done all of the things listed in my first paragraph except selling stuff as a job, for moderately small amounts of money. I run a system which has about 20 people doing a similar thing, though only a couple would earn over $1000/year doing it.
I had a friend once who turned down a job and made a counter-offer of the same work for the same amount of money as a contract, rather than quibble over the starting pay rate. He was then able to write off rent, phone, internet, car against the income and save himselves a couple of thousand in tax. Not rich, just making himself a little bit richer.
It does seem strange to have a go at 'the rich' for legally avoiding tax, and then not see 'the rest of us' illegally avoiding tax.
-
Nearly all of your examples are outright illegal, being tax evasion or fraud. Even barter is taxable, and work-for-work is arguably taxable.
That's my point Matthew. Rich people tend to avoid taxes legally (some undoubtably don't). The rest of us are probably more likely to use illegal measures to not pay tax.
-
3410,
Might help if you didn't treat "avoidance" and "evasion" as interchangeable synonyms, which they aren't in the context of a useful discussion of tax policy. I also had it explained to me in some detail by a editor, back in the day, that it's also a worthwhile distinction to keep in mind if you don't want to deal with the venerable firm of Sue, Grabbit and Runne.
Oh, noes. I might get sued for libel by "the wealthy".
-
That's my point Matthew. Rich people tend to avoid taxes legally (some undoubtably don't). The rest of us are probably more likely to use illegal measures to not pay tax.
And the difference there is if the people in one category get caught, they pay big fines or go to jail. The others, not so much.
By the way
I run a system which has about 20 people doing a similar thing, though only a couple would earn over $1000/year doing it.
You did what? And would you mind not using "us" in the rest of this conversation? Sounds like you might want to speak for yourself there.
-
Oh, noes. I might get sued for libel by "the wealthy".
You'll also incur the ire of people such as myself who have some education in taxation. Evasion is a crime, avoidance is not. Some avoidance schemes cross the line (ask the banks) and become evasion, but the two are not the same thing.
-
3410,
Loving all the argument before the budget announcement.
-
3410,
Evasion is a crime, avoidance is not. Some avoidance schemes cross the line (ask the banks) and become evasion, but the two are not the same thing.
Yes; well aware of that, thanks. In the real word, any accountant will tell you that it's not so black and white.
-
And the difference there is if the people in one category get caught, they pay big fines or go to jail.
Quite. And it's not just "the poor" who get nailed for evasion, either. Proportionately I suspect that "the wealthy" get hit much harder for evasion, because they'll be evading on large sums of money. A person who's evading tax on a couple of grand a year will get a slap, the statutorily-required penalties, and told not to do it again. Someone who's evading on 10s- or 00s-of-thousands of dollars a year will get some very hefty fines on top of the back taxes.
The line between evasion and avoidance isn't just down to how good your lawyer is, either. Trinity and the banks being but two instances where very good, very expensive lawyers couldn't pass their clients' activities off as legal sheltering.
-
In the real word, any accountant will tell you that it's not so black and white.
When it comes to trusts and companies, it's pretty clear-cut if you keep your books in order and don't try to get clever with cheap rents or "company cars", or dividend streaming and related-party loans. The really grey lines come with the creative structures, like Trinity or the banks' creations.
-
...renters being driven out to starve in the hedgerows.
We still have hedgerows!?
Luxury!But... I'd still be worried
about spray drift or being
crushed by irrigation machines...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.