Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sacha,
Clearly you need this.;)
-
Apart from the fact that no one has seriously proposed flat income tax in NZ for 20 something years.
Oh, 20-something years ago, when the top tax rate was 66%?
Are you kidding? They're flattening it now, have done once already, and, if Bill English is to be believed, have yet another round planned.
It would be a refreshing novelty. You can start.
Okay, just let me wipe off the sarcasm again...
Right. The tax plan is, according to the PM, based on the idea that currently New Zealand's wealthiest people do not currently have the resources to be able to productively invest in NZ, and that if we don't look out, many will be forced overseas. I'm almost more offended that they expect me to believe that than I am by the policy itself.
-
Sorry for the mansplain here, but Helen Clark's uterus is fundamentally irrelevant to the quality or otherwise of the policies she promoted
Okay, so lets talk about the quality or otherwise of the policy then. I presume you think that the wealthy are being unfairly burdened under the current tax structure. Have I got that right?
-
That's not what I understand by "pay more tax" at all.
So man A, earning $500k and paying $6k tax "pays more tax" than man B, earning $20k and paying $5k tax?
Okay, technically you're right. It's not a lie; it's a trick, but it's a dishonest representation of the situation, all the same.
You could equally say that a Cheetah running at 20kph is "fast" and a tortoise doing 15kph is "slow", but that also ignores the context.
The obvious implication in the phrase "pays more tax" is that no one has the right to complain if the govt. moves to "close the gaps". This spin is an insidious plan to normalise the idea of a flat tax (because that would be "fair", wouldn't it? Everyone paying "the same"?).
Now, would someone with more brains and knowledge than me please back me up and explain this better. :)
-
-
People on an income of $100,000, even if they spend 70% of their income, pay more GST than people on an income of $40,000 who spend 100% of their income. Possibly a lesser percentage of their income, but that doesn't make the statement a lie.
Yes, it does. When we say "pay more tax" in this context it is understood that we mean "pay more tax as a percentage of income", not "pay more tax in dollar terms". The PM is deliberately distorting the meaning in order to convince. I'm relaxed about that being called dishonest.
-
He added that those on the top rate, expected to be cut from 38 per cent to 33 per cent, consumed more and therefore paid more GST.
Just once, I'd like to see him called on that bullshit; personally, I mean.
-
Come on, Craig. It was pretty asinine.
-
A good wrap-up of Afganistan trip media machinations on the other week's Mediawatch.
-
2010: The Cultural YTD
Will be remembered by me as 'the year we made contact'.