On Sun, 07 Feb 2016 22:47:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This is one >>>>we have known for a long time: >>>>https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

Speak for yourself!
Tony

I am. I am paying much the same tax as I did a year ago, and most New Zealanders will be doinghte same - except that we know that personal
wealth has increased for those at the top . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This is one
we have known for a long time: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

The government doesn't tax wealth, it taxes income.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:35:58 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 7/02/2016 4:26 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This is one >>>>> we have known for a long time:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

If you know of anyone not paying their share according to our laws, then >>pot them, if that's what will make you happy. The biggest offenders
will be small operators, contractors, tradesmen etc., so be prepared for >>the odd load of wet cement dropped in your driveway and a few things
like that. You'll handle it.

Did you read and watch? The point that Gareth Morgan was making is
that he and others _are_ complying with the law - but he doesn't
think it should be like that!

He is quite welcome to pay more than legally required. The trick is that he wants *other people* to pay more than is legally required. That makes him a hypocrite in this sense. If he wanted to pay more, why doesn't he?
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:06:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:35:58 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 7/02/2016 4:26 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This is one >>>>>> we have known for a long time:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

If you know of anyone not paying their share according to our laws, then >>>pot them, if that's what will make you happy. The biggest offenders
will be small operators, contractors, tradesmen etc., so be prepared for >>>the odd load of wet cement dropped in your driveway and a few things
like that. You'll handle it.

Did you read and watch? The point that Gareth Morgan was making is
that he and others _are_ complying with the law - but he doesn't
think it should be like that!

He is quite welcome to pay more than legally required. The trick is that he >wants *other people* to pay more than is legally required.

No he doesn't - he would like the law to be changed (and he's been
quite vocal about how he would like it changed). That is quite
different.

That makes him a
hypocrite in this sense. If he wanted to pay more, why doesn't he?

No it doesn't; it just makes you wrong.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:06:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:35:58 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 7/02/2016 4:26 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>> dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This is >>>>>>> one we have known for a long time:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

If you know of anyone not paying their share according to our laws, then >>>>pot them, if that's what will make you happy. The biggest offenders >>>>will be small operators, contractors, tradesmen etc., so be prepared for >>>>the odd load of wet cement dropped in your driveway and a few things >>>>like that. You'll handle it.

Did you read and watch? The point that Gareth Morgan was making is
that he and others _are_ complying with the law - but he doesn't
think it should be like that!

He is quite welcome to pay more than legally required. The trick is that
he wants *other people* to pay more than is legally required.

No he doesn't - he would like the law to be changed (and he's been
quite vocal about how he would like it changed). That is quite
different.

He wants the law changed so that other people have more of their own money taken from them.

That makes him a
hypocrite in this sense. If he wanted to pay more, why doesn't he?

No it doesn't; it just makes you wrong.

If he wants to pay more, why doesn't he? Assuming that he doesn't pay more
than it legally required, surely that makes him a hypocrite given he thinks
he should be paying more?
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:04:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:06:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:35:58 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 7/02/2016 4:26 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot >>>>>>> net dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This is >>>>>>>>> one we have known for a long time:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

If you know of anyone not paying their share according to our laws, >>>>>>then
pot them, if that's what will make you happy. The biggest offenders >>>>>>will be small operators, contractors, tradesmen etc., so be prepared >>>>>>for the odd load of wet cement dropped in your driveway and a few >>>>>>things like that. You'll handle it.

Did you read and watch? The point that Gareth Morgan was making is
that he and others _are_ complying with the law - but he doesn't
think it should be like that!

He is quite welcome to pay more than legally required. The trick is that >>>>he wants *other people* to pay more than is legally required.

No he doesn't - he would like the law to be changed (and he's been
quite vocal about how he would like it changed). That is quite
different.

He wants the law changed so that other people have more of their own money >>taken from them.

Which is quite different from advocating that others pay more than is required. He wants the law changed.

...so people have more of their own money taken from them.

That makes him a
hypocrite in this sense. If he wanted to pay more, why doesn't he?

No it doesn't; it just makes you wrong.

If he wants to pay more, why doesn't he? Assuming that he doesn't pay more >>than it legally required, surely that makes him a hypocrite given he
thinks he should be paying more?

No it doesn't. Making donations is doifferent from paing taxes that
are due. He doesn't want it changed for just him; that would make
little difference to the country; he wants it changed for all.

Yes. He wants to see that people have more of their own property confiscated from them. I'm calling that out as being unethical. He should only have a
say in what happens to his private property, not what happens to someone else's.

He was advocating a flat rate of 25% on all income - isn't that
similar to your preferred basis for taxation, Allistar?

It's a fairer way to levy a tax that the current system.

Wanting a flat tax is very different than wanting those that earn more to
pay a higher rate. He seems very fickle in his ideas.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:37:43 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:04:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:06:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:35:58 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>

On 7/02/2016 4:26 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot >>>>>>>> net dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This is >>>>>>>>>> one we have known for a long time:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

If you know of anyone not paying their share according to our laws, >>>>>>>then
pot them, if that's what will make you happy. The biggest offenders >>>>>>>will be small operators, contractors, tradesmen etc., so be prepared >>>>>>>for the odd load of wet cement dropped in your driveway and a few >>>>>>>things like that. You'll handle it.

Did you read and watch? The point that Gareth Morgan was making is >>>>>> that he and others _are_ complying with the law - but he doesn't
think it should be like that!

He is quite welcome to pay more than legally required. The trick is that >>>>>he wants *other people* to pay more than is legally required.

No he doesn't - he would like the law to be changed (and he's been
quite vocal about how he would like it changed). That is quite
different.

He wants the law changed so that other people have more of their own money >>>taken from them.

Which is quite different from advocating that others pay more than is
required. He wants the law changed.

...so people have more of their own money taken from them.

That makes him a
hypocrite in this sense. If he wanted to pay more, why doesn't he?

No it doesn't; it just makes you wrong.

If he wants to pay more, why doesn't he? Assuming that he doesn't pay more >>>than it legally required, surely that makes him a hypocrite given he >>>thinks he should be paying more?

No it doesn't. Making donations is doifferent from paing taxes that
are due. He doesn't want it changed for just him; that would make
little difference to the country; he wants it changed for all.

Yes. He wants to see that people have more of their own property confiscated >from them. I'm calling that out as being unethical. He should only have a
say in what happens to his private property, not what happens to someone >else's.

He was advocating a flat rate of 25% on all income - isn't that
similar to your preferred basis for taxation, Allistar?

It's a fairer way to levy a tax that the current system.

Wanting a flat tax is very different than wanting those that earn more to
pay a higher rate. He seems very fickle in his ideas.

For the highest gross earners, 25% of all earnings it would be an
increase in taxation, Allistar. Surely with your aversion to tax you
have arranged your affairs to pay less than 25% inincome tax, haven;'t
you Allistar? If not, why bleat about someting you can change for
yourself, Allistar?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:04:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:06:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:35:58 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 7/02/2016 4:26 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>> dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This is >>>>>>>> one we have known for a long time:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

If you know of anyone not paying their share according to our laws, then >>>>>pot them, if that's what will make you happy. The biggest offenders >>>>>will be small operators, contractors, tradesmen etc., so be prepared for >>>>>the odd load of wet cement dropped in your driveway and a few things >>>>>like that. You'll handle it.

Did you read and watch? The point that Gareth Morgan was making is
that he and others _are_ complying with the law - but he doesn't
think it should be like that!

He is quite welcome to pay more than legally required. The trick is that >>>he wants *other people* to pay more than is legally required.

No he doesn't - he would like the law to be changed (and he's been
quite vocal about how he would like it changed). That is quite
different.

He wants the law changed so that other people have more of their own money >taken from them.

Which is quite different from advocating that others pay more than is
required. He wants the law changed.

That makes him a
hypocrite in this sense. If he wanted to pay more, why doesn't he?

No it doesn't; it just makes you wrong.

If he wants to pay more, why doesn't he? Assuming that he doesn't pay more >than it legally required, surely that makes him a hypocrite given he thinks >he should be paying more?

No it doesn't. Making donations is doifferent from paing taxes that
are due. He doesn't want it changed for just him; that would make
little difference to the country; he wants it changed for all.

He was advocating a flat rate of 25% on all income - isn't that
similar to your preferred basis for taxation, Allistar?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:31:39 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:37:43 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:04:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:06:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:35:58 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>

On 7/02/2016 4:26 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot >>>>>>>>>> net dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This >>>>>>>>>>>> is one we have known for a long time:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

If you know of anyone not paying their share according to our laws, >>>>>>>>>then
pot them, if that's what will make you happy. The biggest offenders >>>>>>>>>will be small operators, contractors, tradesmen etc., so be prepared >>>>>>>>>for the odd load of wet cement dropped in your driveway and a few >>>>>>>>>things like that. You'll handle it.

Did you read and watch? The point that Gareth Morgan was making is >>>>>>>> that he and others _are_ complying with the law - but he doesn't >>>>>>>> think it should be like that!

He is quite welcome to pay more than legally required. The trick is >>>>>>>that he wants *other people* to pay more than is legally required.

No he doesn't - he would like the law to be changed (and he's been >>>>>> quite vocal about how he would like it changed). That is quite
different.

He wants the law changed so that other people have more of their own >>>>>money taken from them.

Which is quite different from advocating that others pay more than is
required. He wants the law changed.

...so people have more of their own money taken from them.

That makes him a
hypocrite in this sense. If he wanted to pay more, why doesn't he? >>>>>> No it doesn't; it just makes you wrong.

If he wants to pay more, why doesn't he? Assuming that he doesn't pay >>>>>more than it legally required, surely that makes him a hypocrite given >>>>>he thinks he should be paying more?

No it doesn't. Making donations is doifferent from paing taxes that
are due. He doesn't want it changed for just him; that would make
little difference to the country; he wants it changed for all.

Yes. He wants to see that people have more of their own property >>>confiscated from them. I'm calling that out as being unethical. He should >>>only have a say in what happens to his private property, not what happens >>>to someone else's.

He was advocating a flat rate of 25% on all income - isn't that
similar to your preferred basis for taxation, Allistar?

It's a fairer way to levy a tax that the current system.

Wanting a flat tax is very different than wanting those that earn more to >>>pay a higher rate. He seems very fickle in his ideas.

For the highest gross earners, 25% of all earnings would be an
increase in taxation, Allistar.

No it wouldn't. The top tax rate is 33%.

I was referring to taxzable eranings, Allistar - that is not he same
as "ïncome". - and as the article pointed out, many of wealthiest New Zealanders pay little tax.

Surely with your aversion to tax you
have arranged your affairs to pay less than 25% inincome tax, haven;'t
you Allistar?

There are no legal way for an individual to pay less than 33% of your profit >(that is above $80k a year).

Profit is not necessarily the same as taxable income, Allistar. I
suggest you have a talk to your accountant

If not, why bleat about someting you can change for
yourself, Allistar?

I'm not bleating. I'm commenting on someone who wants other people to pay >more in taxation. I think it's an unethical approach to take.

He was quite willing to pay the same as everyone else, Allistar - the
law change he advocates would result in him and many others paying
more tax. There is nothing unethical with advocating a change to the
law - after all you do that frequently.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:37:43 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:04:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:06:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:35:58 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>

On 7/02/2016 4:26 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot >>>>>>>>> net dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This >>>>>>>>>>> is one we have known for a long time:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

If you know of anyone not paying their share according to our laws, >>>>>>>>then
pot them, if that's what will make you happy. The biggest offenders >>>>>>>>will be small operators, contractors, tradesmen etc., so be prepared >>>>>>>>for the odd load of wet cement dropped in your driveway and a few >>>>>>>>things like that. You'll handle it.

Did you read and watch? The point that Gareth Morgan was making is >>>>>>> that he and others _are_ complying with the law - but he doesn't >>>>>>> think it should be like that!

He is quite welcome to pay more than legally required. The trick is >>>>>>that he wants *other people* to pay more than is legally required.

No he doesn't - he would like the law to be changed (and he's been
quite vocal about how he would like it changed). That is quite
different.

He wants the law changed so that other people have more of their own >>>>money taken from them.

Which is quite different from advocating that others pay more than is
required. He wants the law changed.

...so people have more of their own money taken from them.

That makes him a
hypocrite in this sense. If he wanted to pay more, why doesn't he?

No it doesn't; it just makes you wrong.

If he wants to pay more, why doesn't he? Assuming that he doesn't pay >>>>more than it legally required, surely that makes him a hypocrite given >>>>he thinks he should be paying more?

No it doesn't. Making donations is doifferent from paing taxes that
are due. He doesn't want it changed for just him; that would make
little difference to the country; he wants it changed for all.

Yes. He wants to see that people have more of their own property >>confiscated from them. I'm calling that out as being unethical. He should >>only have a say in what happens to his private property, not what happens >>to someone else's.

He was advocating a flat rate of 25% on all income - isn't that
similar to your preferred basis for taxation, Allistar?

It's a fairer way to levy a tax that the current system.

Wanting a flat tax is very different than wanting those that earn more to >>pay a higher rate. He seems very fickle in his ideas.

For the highest gross earners, 25% of all earnings it would be an
increase in taxation, Allistar.

No it wouldn't. The top tax rate is 33%.

Surely with your aversion to tax you
have arranged your affairs to pay less than 25% inincome tax, haven;'t
you Allistar?

There are no legal way for an individual to pay less than 33% of your profit (that is above $80k a year).

If not, why bleat about someting you can change for
yourself, Allistar?

I'm not bleating. I'm commenting on someone who wants other people to pay
more in taxation. I think it's an unethical approach to take.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:31:39 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:37:43 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:04:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:06:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:35:58 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:

On 7/02/2016 4:26 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon >>>>>>>>>>> dot net dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one we have known for a long time:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

If you know of anyone not paying their share according to our >>>>>>>>>>laws, then
pot them, if that's what will make you happy. The biggest >>>>>>>>>>offenders will be small operators, contractors, tradesmen etc., so >>>>>>>>>>be prepared for the odd load of wet cement dropped in your >>>>>>>>>>driveway and a few things like that. You'll handle it.

Did you read and watch? The point that Gareth Morgan was making is >>>>>>>>> that he and others _are_ complying with the law - but he doesn't >>>>>>>>> think it should be like that!

He is quite welcome to pay more than legally required. The trick is >>>>>>>>that he wants *other people* to pay more than is legally required. >>>>>>

No he doesn't - he would like the law to be changed (and he's been >>>>>>> quite vocal about how he would like it changed). That is quite
different.

He wants the law changed so that other people have more of their own >>>>>>money taken from them.

Which is quite different from advocating that others pay more than is >>>>> required. He wants the law changed.

...so people have more of their own money taken from them.

That makes him a
hypocrite in this sense. If he wanted to pay more, why doesn't he? >>>>>>> No it doesn't; it just makes you wrong.

If he wants to pay more, why doesn't he? Assuming that he doesn't pay >>>>>>more than it legally required, surely that makes him a hypocrite given >>>>>>he thinks he should be paying more?

No it doesn't. Making donations is doifferent from paing taxes that
are due. He doesn't want it changed for just him; that would make
little difference to the country; he wants it changed for all.

Yes. He wants to see that people have more of their own property >>>>confiscated from them. I'm calling that out as being unethical. He >>>>should only have a say in what happens to his private property, not what >>>>happens to someone else's.

He was advocating a flat rate of 25% on all income - isn't that
similar to your preferred basis for taxation, Allistar?

It's a fairer way to levy a tax that the current system.

Wanting a flat tax is very different than wanting those that earn more >>>>to pay a higher rate. He seems very fickle in his ideas.

For the highest gross earners, 25% of all earnings would be an
increase in taxation, Allistar.

No it wouldn't. The top tax rate is 33%.

I was referring to taxzable eranings, Allistar - that is not he same
as "ïncome". - and as the article pointed out, many of wealthiest New Zealanders pay little tax.

Yet those with high taxable incomes pay a lot of tax. You do understand the difference between wealth and income?

Surely with your aversion to tax you
have arranged your affairs to pay less than 25% inincome tax, haven;'t
you Allistar?

There are no legal way for an individual to pay less than 33% of your >>profit (that is above $80k a year).

Profit is not necessarily the same as taxable income, Allistar. I
suggest you have a talk to your accountant

You pay tax on profit (income less claimable expenses). Neither of which
have anything to do with wealth.

If not, why bleat about someting you can change for
yourself, Allistar?

I'm not bleating. I'm commenting on someone who wants other people to pay >>more in taxation. I think it's an unethical approach to take.

He was quite willing to pay the same as everyone else, Allistar

But he's not willing to pay more, even though he wants others to pay more?

- the
law change he advocates would result in him and many others paying
more tax. There is nothing unethical with advocating a change to the
law - after all you do that frequently.

There is a lot wrong with wanting private property to be confiscated from
other people using threats of force.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 9/02/2016 3:44 p.m., Allistar wrote:

There is a lot wrong with wanting private property to be confiscated from other people using threats of force.

I suggest you set sail for the tax free utopia that is Saudi Arabia.

If that is the most important thing to you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:12:10 +1300, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:

On 9/02/2016 3:44 p.m., Allistar wrote:

There is a lot wrong with wanting private property to be confiscated from
other people using threats of force.

I suggest you set sail for the tax free utopia that is Saudi Arabia.

What a really stupid post.
In the absence of Patrick . Victor has been promoted
the groups position of Village idiot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:u0ohbbd4vm3g7j2tiulid9mfsgl9hc0oac@4ax.com...

On Sun, 07 Feb 2016 22:47:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This is one >>>>>we have known for a long time: >>>>>https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

Speak for yourself!
Tony

I am. I am paying much the same tax as I did a year ago, and most New Zealanders will be doinghte same - except that we know that personal
wealth has increased for those at the top . . .

Which if you actualy comprehended anything would tell you they're paying
more tax now than a year ago. Sheesh! There's none so dumb as a trolling
lefty fruitloop like Rich!

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"Allistar" <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote in message news:T5KdnVLKAtDlzyTLnZ2dnUU7-S2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:31:39 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:37:43 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:04:45 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>> wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:06:16 +1300, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:35:58 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:

On 7/02/2016 4:26 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 14:54:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon >>>>>>>>>>>> dot net dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one we have known for a long time:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

This is over a year old Rich.

Tony

It is too - how soon we forget!
I doubt anything has changed . . .

If you know of anyone not paying their share according to our >>>>>>>>>>>laws, then
pot them, if that's what will make you happy. The biggest >>>>>>>>>>>offenders will be small operators, contractors, tradesmen etc., >>>>>>>>>>>so
be prepared for the odd load of wet cement dropped in your >>>>>>>>>>>driveway and a few things like that. You'll handle it.

Did you read and watch? The point that Gareth Morgan was making >>>>>>>>>> is
that he and others _are_ complying with the law - but he doesn't >>>>>>>>>> think it should be like that!

He is quite welcome to pay more than legally required. The trick is >>>>>>>>>that he wants *other people* to pay more than is legally required. >>>>>>>

No he doesn't - he would like the law to be changed (and he's been >>>>>>>> quite vocal about how he would like it changed). That is quite >>>>>>>> different.

He wants the law changed so that other people have more of their own >>>>>>>money taken from them.

Which is quite different from advocating that others pay more than is >>>>>> required. He wants the law changed.

...so people have more of their own money taken from them.

That makes him a
hypocrite in this sense. If he wanted to pay more, why doesn't he? >>>>>>>> No it doesn't; it just makes you wrong.

If he wants to pay more, why doesn't he? Assuming that he doesn't pay >>>>>>>more than it legally required, surely that makes him a hypocrite >>>>>>>given
he thinks he should be paying more?

No it doesn't. Making donations is doifferent from paing taxes that >>>>>> are due. He doesn't want it changed for just him; that would make
little difference to the country; he wants it changed for all.

Yes. He wants to see that people have more of their own property >>>>>confiscated from them. I'm calling that out as being unethical. He >>>>>should only have a say in what happens to his private property, not >>>>>what
happens to someone else's.

He was advocating a flat rate of 25% on all income - isn't that
similar to your preferred basis for taxation, Allistar?

It's a fairer way to levy a tax that the current system.

Wanting a flat tax is very different than wanting those that earn more >>>>>to pay a higher rate. He seems very fickle in his ideas.

For the highest gross earners, 25% of all earnings would be an
increase in taxation, Allistar.

No it wouldn't. The top tax rate is 33%.

I was referring to taxzable eranings, Allistar - that is not he same
as "ïncome". - and as the article pointed out, many of wealthiest New
Zealanders pay little tax.

Yet those with high taxable incomes pay a lot of tax. You do understand
the
difference between wealth and income?

Surely with your aversion to tax you
have arranged your affairs to pay less than 25% inincome tax, haven;'t >>>> you Allistar?

There are no legal way for an individual to pay less than 33% of your >>>profit (that is above $80k a year).

Profit is not necessarily the same as taxable income, Allistar. I
suggest you have a talk to your accountant

You pay tax on profit (income less claimable expenses). Neither of which
have anything to do with wealth.

If not, why bleat about someting you can change for
yourself, Allistar?

I'm not bleating. I'm commenting on someone who wants other people to pay >>>more in taxation. I think it's an unethical approach to take.

He was quite willing to pay the same as everyone else, Allistar

But he's not willing to pay more, even though he wants others to pay more?

- the
law change he advocates would result in him and many others paying
more tax. There is nothing unethical with advocating a change to the
law - after all you do that frequently.

There is a lot wrong with wanting private property to be confiscated from other people using threats of force.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

Give up Allistar. Your trying to discuss a subject that Rich obviously
doesn't understand. On top of that Rich wants all the 'rich pricks'
(probably meaning hardworking indipendnt people like you pay more tax to
fund Labours unaffordable policys.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"Liberty" <liberty48@live.com> wrote in message news:vtejbbdsktb0vh2d9hhk2ccnh690g5pttg@4ax.com...

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:12:10 +1300, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:

On 9/02/2016 3:44 p.m., Allistar wrote:

There is a lot wrong with wanting private property to be confiscated
from
other people using threats of force.

I suggest you set sail for the tax free utopia that is Saudi Arabia.

What a really stupid post.
In the absence of Patrick . Victor has been promoted
the groups position of Village idiot.

Nah. That's gotta be Rich. Best victor can hope for is group jester.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"Allistar" <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote in message news:TvidnXJ5PZsnZiXLnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Rich80105 wrote:

It is usually January when the easy news stories come out. This is one
we have known for a long time:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

The government doesn't tax wealth, it taxes income.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

It's interesting that Labour never did anything about this. Was that because
a couple of high rollers made them big donations (Glen and DotCon).

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:18:03 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:12:10 +1300, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:

On 9/02/2016 3:44 p.m., Allistar wrote:

There is a lot wrong with wanting private property to be confiscated from >>> other people using threats of force.

I suggest you set sail for the tax free utopia that is Saudi Arabia.

What a really stupid post.
In the absence of Patrick . Victor has been promoted
the groups position of Village idiot.

You could try real argument rather than personal abuse, "Liberty."

Start with the level of tax that you think is reasonable in a modern
country that wishes to have a future . . . Do you think there is room
for a reduction in taxes while debt is piling up at millions a week?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:00:25 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:18:03 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:12:10 +1300, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:

On 9/02/2016 3:44 p.m., Allistar wrote:

There is a lot wrong with wanting private property to be confiscated from >>>> other people using threats of force.

I suggest you set sail for the tax free utopia that is Saudi Arabia.

What a really stupid post.
In the absence of Patrick . Victor has been promoted
the groups position of Village idiot.

You could try real argument rather than personal abuse, "Liberty."

It wasn't personal abuse it was a compliment.

Start with the level of tax that you think is reasonable in a modern
country that wishes to have a future . . . Do you think there is room
for a reduction in taxes while debt is piling up at millions a week?

There is always room for tax reduction. As there room for massive
cut in government spending.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

victor wrote:

On 9/02/2016 3:44 p.m., Allistar wrote:

There is a lot wrong with wanting private property to be confiscated from
other people using threats of force.

I suggest you set sail for the tax free utopia that is Saudi Arabia.

If that is the most important thing to you.

It's not, but liberty is important.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"Liberty" <liberty48@live.com> wrote in message news:09ekbbphbmmvkm3ja56i4qbr3h36c0b42j@4ax.com...

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:00:25 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:18:03 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:12:10 +1300, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:

On 9/02/2016 3:44 p.m., Allistar wrote:

There is a lot wrong with wanting private property to be confiscated >>>>> from
other people using threats of force.

I suggest you set sail for the tax free utopia that is Saudi Arabia.

What a really stupid post.
In the absence of Patrick . Victor has been promoted
the groups position of Village idiot.

You could try real argument rather than personal abuse, "Liberty."

It wasn't personal abuse it was a compliment.

Well maybe not a compliment Lib. But it was certainly the truth about the
nasty widdle troll Rich.

Start with the level of tax that you think is reasonable in a modern >>country that wishes to have a future . . . Do you think there is room
for a reduction in taxes while debt is piling up at millions a week?

There is always room for tax reduction. As there room for massive
cut in government spending.

Not in the oh so stupid mind[?]* of the trolling Rich.

Pooh

*It's incapable of anything other than Labour good, National bad'. Which explains Riches inability to debate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:03akbblc358561kiobgni5174lduemqdrj@4ax.com...

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:18:03 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:12:10 +1300, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:

On 9/02/2016 3:44 p.m., Allistar wrote:

There is a lot wrong with wanting private property to be confiscated
from
other people using threats of force.

I suggest you set sail for the tax free utopia that is Saudi Arabia.

What a really stupid post.
In the absence of Patrick . Victor has been promoted
the groups position of Village idiot.

You could try real argument rather than personal abuse, "Liberty."

You could try practicing what you preach rather than personal abuse and just mindlessly repeating proven and obvious lies in lieu of rational argument
Rich.

Start with the level of tax that you think is reasonable in a modern
country that wishes to have a future . . . Do you think there is room
for a reduction in taxes while debt is piling up at millions a week?

Any modern country that wishes a future needs to get the marxist muppets
that fritter tax dollars away like Labour out of parliament Rich. It's not
the business of government to raise taxes to meet their needs but to make proper use of the taxes they already get. Only a mindless loopy lefty troll like you Rich would think different.

Pooh

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:00:25 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:18:03 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:12:10 +1300, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:

On 9/02/2016 3:44 p.m., Allistar wrote:

There is a lot wrong with wanting private property to be confiscated from >>>> other people using threats of force.

I suggest you set sail for the tax free utopia that is Saudi Arabia.

What a really stupid post.
In the absence of Patrick . Victor has been promoted
the groups position of Village idiot.

You could try real argument rather than personal abuse, "Liberty."

Start with the level of tax that you think is reasonable in a modern
country that wishes to have a future . . .

Rich that is the same as asking 'how long is a piece of string'. Name
a 'modern country' that has a better tax regime to NZ.

Do you think there is room
for a reduction in taxes while debt is piling up at millions a week?

Clearly not but I would be interested in a cite for increased debt.
Leaving this aside, I would advocate small but sustainable increases
in spending on health, education and law enforcement.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)