Its said that ideas have no boundaries - and so it is no surprise that
the harm done through the neo-liberal extremist policie followed in
many countries is now being questioned in many different places around
the world. New Zealand has had a particularly stupid version of the
neo-lib experiment in the last 9 years, with the National-led
government selling profitable state-owned organisations at values
which delivered above market returns to purchasers, and selling houses
in a rising market, just to fund tax cuts - an extension of borrow
and hope to bribe, sell, borrow and hope - the following article
explains perhaps why the Conservatives may not find the forthcoming
election as easy as they had thought . . .
_ _ _ _ _

The myths about money that British voters should reject

Ha-Joon Chang

The economy is held back by persistent illusions ­ such as the idea
Britain spends a lot on welfare


Thursday 1 June 2017 20.36 BST

Befitting a surprise election, the manifestos from the main parties
contained surprises. Labour is shaking off decades of shyness about nationalisation and tax increases for the rich and for the first time
in decades has a policy agenda that is not Tory-lite. The
Conservatives, meanwhile, say they are rejecting ³the cult of selfish individualism² and ³belief in untrammelled free markets², while
adopting the quasi-Marxist idea of an energy price cap.

Despite these significant shifts, myths about the economy refuse to go
away and hamper a more productive debate. They concern how the
government manages public finances ­ ³tax and spend², if you will.

The first is that there is an inherent virtue in balancing the books. Conservatives still cling to the idea of eliminating the budget
deficit, even if it is with a 10-year delay (2025, as opposed to
George Osborne¹s original goal of 2015). The budget-balancing myth is
so powerful that Labour feels it has to cost its new spending pledges
down to the last penny, lest it be accused of fiscal irresponsibility.

However, as Keynes and his followers told us, whether a balanced
budget is a good or a bad thing depends on the circumstances. In an
overheating economy, deficit spending would be a serious folly.
However, in today¹s UK economy, whose underlying stagnation has been
masked only by the release of excess liquidity on an oceanic scale,
some deficit spending may be good ­ necessary, even.

The second myth is that the UK welfare state is especially large.
Conservatives believe that it is bloated out of all proportion and
needs to be drastically cut. Even the Labour party partly buys into
this idea. Its extra spending pledge on this front is presented as an
attempt to reverse the worst of the Tory cuts, rather than as an
attempt to expand provision to rebuild the foundation for a decent
society.

The reality is the UK welfare state is not large at all. As of 2016,
the British welfare state (measured by public social spending) was, at
21.5% of GDP, barely three-quarters of welfare spending in comparably
rich countries in Europe ­ France¹s is 31.5% and Denmark¹s is 28.7%,
for example. The UK welfare state is barely larger than the OECD
average (21%), which includes a dozen or so countries such as Mexico,
Chile, Turkey and Estonia, which are much poorer and/or have less need
for public welfare provision. They have younger populations and
stronger extended family networks.

The third myth is that welfare spending is consumption ­ that it is a
drain on the nation¹s productive resources and thus has to be
minimised. This myth is what Conservative supporters subscribe to when
they say that, despite their negative impact, we have to accept cuts
in such things as disability benefit, unemployment benefit, child care
and free school meals, because we ³can¹t afford them². This myth even
tints, although doesn¹t define, Labour¹s view on the welfare state.
For example, Labour argues for an expansion of welfare spending, but
promises to finance it with current revenue, thereby implicitly
admitting that the money that goes into it is consumption that
does not add to future output.

However, a lot of welfare spending is investment that pays back more
than it costs, through increased productivity in the future.
Expenditure on education (especially early learning programmes such as
Sure Start), childcare and school meals programmes is an investment in
the nation¹s future productivity. Unemployment benefit, especially if
combined with good publicly funded retraining and job-search
programmes, such as in Scandinavia, preserve the human productive
capabilities that would otherwise be lost, as we have seen in so many
former industrial towns in the UK. Increased spending on disability
benefits and care for older people helps carers to have more time and
less stress, making them more productive workers.

The last myth is that tax is a burden, which therefore by definition
needs to be minimised. The Conservatives are clear about this,
proposing to cut corporation tax further to 17%, one of the lowest
levels in the rich world. However, even Labour is using the language
of ³burden² about taxes. In proposing tax increases for the highest
income earners and large corporations, Jeremy Corbyn spoke of his
belief that ³those with the broadest shoulders should bear the
greatest burden².

But would you call the money that you pay for your takeaway curry or
Netflix subscription a burden? You wouldn¹t, because you recognise
that you are getting your curry and TV shows in return. Likewise, you
shouldn¹t call your taxes a burden because in return you get an array
of public services, from education, health and old-age care, through
to flood defence and roads to the police and military.

If tax really were a pure burden, all rich individuals and companies
would move to Paraguay or Bulgaria, where the top rate of income tax
is 10%. Of course, this does not happen because, in those countries,
in return for low tax you get poor public services. Conversely, most
rich Swedes don¹t go into tax exile because of their 60% top income
tax rate, because they get a good welfare state and excellent
education in return. Japanese and German companies don¹t move out of
their countries in droves despite some of the highest corporate income
tax rates in the world (31% and 30% respectively)
because they get good infrastructure, well-educated workers, strong
public support for research and development, and well-functioning administrative and legal systems.

Low tax is not in itself a virtue. The question should be whether the government is providing services of satisfactory quality, given the
tax receipts, not what the level of tax is.

The British debate on economic policy is finally moving on from the
bankrupt neoliberal consensus of the past few decades. But the
departure won¹t be complete until we do away with the persistent myths
about tax and spend.

© Guardian 2017

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

On 2017-06-02, Rich80105 <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

Its said that ideas have no boundaries - and so it is no surprise that
the harm done through the neo-liberal extremist policie followed in
many countries is now being questioned in many different places around
the world. New Zealand has had a particularly stupid version of the
neo-lib experiment in the last 9 years, with the National-led
government selling profitable state-owned organisations at values

Could we all just step back and ask History about this.

First up we have Roger Douglas who started it all off. You know 1984. Telcom etc.

Yes, he was in the Labour government.

So both are as bad as each other.

Still it is good to see that people are starting to talk about value they
get for their taxes.

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

On 2 Jun 2017 08:22:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

On 2017-06-02, Rich80105 <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

Its said that ideas have no boundaries - and so it is no surprise that
the harm done through the neo-liberal extremist policie followed in
many countries is now being questioned in many different places around
the world. New Zealand has had a particularly stupid version of the
neo-lib experiment in the last 9 years, with the National-led
government selling profitable state-owned organisations at values

Could we all just step back and ask History about this.

First up we have Roger Douglas who started it all off. You know 1984. Telcom >etc.

Yes, he was in the Labour government.

So both are as bad as each other.

Your logic block is showing again.
Over 30 years ago Labour inherited a country near bankrupt from the authoritarian Muldoon National government - they had to make some
changes quickly and yes they got it wrong with poor asset sales. Go
forward to the Clarke Labour Government, where coalition politics
meant fast change was not possible, but again they had a debt mountain
from a National government to cope with, but they reverses many of the
most egregious changes National had made - treated beneficiaries
better and reduced unemployment.
Now we have just had another rapacious National Government running
services down, more poor asset sales, treating beneficiaries badly,
and yes again high debt for the Labour/Green government to deal with.

So no they are not "as bad as each other"- all governments make
mistakes, but National in the last 9 years have made a succession of
poor decisions through favouring the wealthy (and their supporters)
over the majority of New Zealanders, victim blaming, and poor
investment decisions. There is much talk of "social investment" which
is a way they justify spending only on a the most impoverished - but
which they contadict by using it to run down social services so that
more will become eligible for being in "most need", while they do away
with a highly productive while relatively small programme such as home insulation that reduce child illnesses and show a $6 benefit for each
$1 spent. Instead they are in thrall to the road transport industry
and put huge amounts into vanity projects like the holiday highway -
and don;t even try to meet the promises they made in the Northland
election that they rightly lost to Winston Peters.

Still it is good to see that people are starting to talk about value they
get for their taxes.

I agree, Gordon. Low taxes are not hte answer, and we are starting to
get a few wealthy people saying that reducing taxes for the wealthy
(the majority of the recent tax reductions are going to people that
are on the top tax bracket) is not good for domestic businesses, or
for the country.

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

Rich80105 wrote:

On 2 Jun 2017 08:22:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

[snip for brevity]

I agree, Gordon. Low taxes are not hte answer, and we are starting to
get a few wealthy people saying that reducing taxes for the wealthy

Every vote is equal. Or are you implying that these few people have more
power on voting day than the other 3 or so million eligible voters?

(the majority of the recent tax reductions are going to people that
are on the top tax bracket)

With a progressive tax system those that earn more pay proportionally more. Therefore when taxes are reduced those that earn more will pay
proportionally less than others. This is simple mathematics. You can't take water out of the bottom of a bucket without the water at the top dropping.

is not good for domestic businesses, or for the country.

Yes, it is good for both of those things. Businesses benefit as business
owners have a higher ability to reinvest. This is good for the number of
staff employed as well as the staff remuneration. It grows those local businesses as the money those business earn can stay within the business allowing them to grow.

Confiscating less money from a business is good for that business. There is
no logic in saying that confiscating more money from a business is good for that business.
--
"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 3/06/2017 9:35 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On 2 Jun 2017 08:22:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

On 2017-06-02, Rich80105 <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

Its said that ideas have no boundaries - and so it is no surprise that
the harm done through the neo-liberal extremist policie followed in
many countries is now being questioned in many different places around
the world. New Zealand has had a particularly stupid version of the
neo-lib experiment in the last 9 years, with the National-led
government selling profitable state-owned organisations at values

Could we all just step back and ask History about this.

First up we have Roger Douglas who started it all off. You know 1984. Telcom >> etc.

Yes, he was in the Labour government.

So both are as bad as each other.

Your logic block is showing again.
Over 30 years ago Labour inherited a country near bankrupt from the authoritarian Muldoon National government - they had to make some
changes quickly and yes they got it wrong with poor asset sales. Go
forward to the Clarke Labour Government, where coalition politics
meant fast change was not possible, but again they had a debt mountain
from a National government to cope with, but they reverses many of the
most egregious changes National had made - treated beneficiaries
better and reduced unemployment.
Now we have just had another rapacious National Government running
services down, more poor asset sales, treating beneficiaries badly,
and yes again high debt for the Labour/Green government to deal with.

So no they are not "as bad as each other"- all governments make
mistakes, but National in the last 9 years have made a succession of
poor decisions through favouring the wealthy (and their supporters)
over the majority of New Zealanders, victim blaming, and poor
investment decisions. There is much talk of "social investment" which
is a way they justify spending only on a the most impoverished - but
which they contadict by using it to run down social services so that
more will become eligible for being in "most need", while they do away
with a highly productive while relatively small programme such as home insulation that reduce child illnesses and show a $6 benefit for each
$1 spent. Instead they are in thrall to the road transport industry
and put huge amounts into vanity projects like the holiday highway -
and don;t even try to meet the promises they made in the Northland
election that they rightly lost to Winston Peters.

Still it is good to see that people are starting to talk about value they
get for their taxes.

I agree, Gordon. Low taxes are not hte answer, and we are starting to
get a few wealthy people saying that reducing taxes for the wealthy
(the majority of the recent tax reductions are going to people that
are on the top tax bracket) is not good for domestic businesses, or
for the country.

Living in the past still Rich. Can you please explain how KiwiRail that
you touted on behalf of Clark's Labour party as being a strategic asset.
Has in fact cost us at least $5 billion and STILL needs more to keep it
running because National can't find anyone stupid enough to buy the
economic black hole?

And to think you're dumb enough to believe a large part of government
debt can't be linked to Labours typical lack of economic comprehension.

Pooh

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

On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 10:31:01 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On 2 Jun 2017 08:22:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

[snip for brevity]

I agree, Gordon. Low taxes are not the answer, and we are starting to
get a few wealthy people saying that reducing taxes for the wealthy

Every vote is equal. Or are you implying that these few people have more >power on voting day than the other 3 or so million eligible voters?

No, I am implying that the people lookig for a fairer tax bsis are not
just those on low and middle incomes - they include wealthy people who
believe they will gain more from policies that reduce inequality than
they would from a tax cut that does not help business or New Zealand

(the majority of the recent tax reductions are going to people that
are on the top tax bracket)

With a progressive tax system those that earn more pay proportionally more. >Therefore when taxes are reduced those that earn more will pay
proportionally less than others. This is simple mathematics.

No it is not. National have arranged tax bribes (not effective unless
they are elected) that would give 20 to 35 times more money in hand to
the wealthy than to low income New Zealanders. Three-quaters of the
reductin n government revenue comes from the wealthy. If they had
arranged the tax changes differently, they would have been able to
give those with very high taxable incomes small or no reductions in
tax - or even tax tax increases. "Mathematically" that could be
achieved in many ways, but two obvious ones are to either reduce the
threshold for the top tax rate to produce the same tax as currently
for anyone with taxable income equal to that lower threshold, or to
increase the top tax rate by say 1%. You work it out, Allistar

You can't take
water out of the bottom of a bucket without the water at the top dropping.

The group of New Zeaand taxpayers are not a bucket - see above.

is not good for domestic businesses, or for the country.

Yes, it is good for both of those things. Businesses benefit as business >owners have a higher ability to reinvest. This is good for the number of >staff employed as well as the staff remuneration. It grows those local >businesses as the money those business earn can stay within the business >allowing them to grow.

Rubbish - many local business are suffering as domestic demand has
fallen due to the large number of people who struggle to purchase
basic necessities. Yes there are some who will benefit - those
catering for wealthy New Zealanders - and will include importers of
high end goods, travel agencies, cruise ships, and overseas
destinations.

Confiscating less money from a business is good for that business. There is >no logic in saying that confiscating more money from a business is good for >that business.

Try watching Gareth Morgan argueing that allowing him to have an
effective tax rate of less than 10% is not fair - and that if the
wealthy paid theor fair share it would be possible to reduce tax rates
for most New Zealanders.

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

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 10:31:01 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On 2 Jun 2017 08:22:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

[snip for brevity]

I agree, Gordon. Low taxes are not the answer, and we are starting to
get a few wealthy people saying that reducing taxes for the wealthy

Every vote is equal. Or are you implying that these few people have more >>power on voting day than the other 3 or so million eligible voters?

No, I am implying that the people lookig for a fairer tax bsis are not
just those on low and middle incomes - they include wealthy people who believe they will gain more from policies that reduce inequality than
they would from a tax cut that does not help business or New Zealand

What you're saying is confusing. You seem to be arguing for a fairer tax
system on one hand but you're supporting a progressive tax system on the
other. You can't have both.

(the majority of the recent tax reductions are going to people that
are on the top tax bracket)

With a progressive tax system those that earn more pay proportionally
more. Therefore when taxes are reduced those that earn more will pay >>proportionally less than others. This is simple mathematics.

No it is not. National have arranged tax bribes (not effective unless
they are elected) that would give 20 to 35 times more money in hand to
the wealthy than to low income New Zealanders.

The government is giving wealthy people money? Can you provide some evidence
of this?

Three-quaters of the
reductin n government revenue comes from the wealthy.

Because the wealthy pay considerably more tax both in absolute terms and in proportion.

If they had
arranged the tax changes differently, they would have been able to
give those with very high taxable incomes small or no reductions in
tax - or even tax tax increases.

Since that would lead to a less fair tax system it's not surprising they
didn't do that.

"Mathematically" that could be
achieved in many ways, but two obvious ones are to either reduce the threshold for the top tax rate to produce the same tax as currently
for anyone with taxable income equal to that lower threshold, or to
increase the top tax rate by say 1%. You work it out, Allistar

Why would I try and work out less fair ways of taxing people? I would like
it to be fairer.

You can't take
water out of the bottom of a bucket without the water at the top dropping.

The group of New Zeaand taxpayers are not a bucket - see above.

is not good for domestic businesses, or for the country.

Yes, it is good for both of those things. Businesses benefit as business >>owners have a higher ability to reinvest. This is good for the number of >>staff employed as well as the staff remuneration. It grows those local >>businesses as the money those business earn can stay within the business >>allowing them to grow.

Rubbish - many local business are suffering as domestic demand has
fallen due to the large number of people who struggle to purchase
basic necessities.

I don't think that has anything to do with the effectively negative amount
of tax such people pay.

Yes there are some who will benefit - those
catering for wealthy New Zealanders - and will include importers of
high end goods, travel agencies, cruise ships, and overseas
destinations.

Confiscating less money from a business is good for that business. There
is no logic in saying that confiscating more money from a business is good >>for that business.

Try watching Gareth Morgan argueing that allowing him to have an
effective tax rate of less than 10% is not fair

And yet he hasn't volunteered to pay what he thinks is the right amount.
That's because he doesn't want more of just his money taken from him, he
wants more of other peoples' money taken from them. That's unethical.

- and that if the
wealthy paid theor fair share it would be possible to reduce tax rates
for most New Zealanders.

They pay far more than their fair share already.

A high proportion of New Zealanders pay no net tax anyway. That is, the
state gives them more money than it takes from them.
--
"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, 06 Jun 2017 13:58:44 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 10:31:01 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On 2 Jun 2017 08:22:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

[snip for brevity]

I agree, Gordon. Low taxes are not the answer, and we are starting to
get a few wealthy people saying that reducing taxes for the wealthy

Every vote is equal. Or are you implying that these few people have more >>>power on voting day than the other 3 or so million eligible voters?

No, I am implying that the people lookig for a fairer tax basis are not
just those on low and middle incomes - they include wealthy people who
believe they will gain more from policies that reduce inequality than
they would from a tax cut that does not help business or New Zealand

What you're saying is confusing. You seem to be arguing for a fairer tax >system on one hand but you're supporting a progressive tax system on the >other. You can't have both.

Your view of "fair" not shared by the majority of people that have
voted for parties that support a progressive system for many years.

(the majority of the recent tax reductions are going to people that
are on the top tax bracket)

With a progressive tax system those that earn more pay proportionally >>>more. Therefore when taxes are reduced those that earn more will pay >>>proportionally less than others. This is simple mathematics.

No it is not. National have arranged tax bribes (not effective unless
they are elected) that would give 20 to 35 times more money in hand to
the wealthy than to low income New Zealanders.

The government is giving wealthy people money? Can you provide some evidence >of this?

I am sure that you were not in any doubt that I was talking of the
reductions in tax announced in the budget (or the 2009 tax changes -
they also were disproportionately skewed in favour of the wealthy).

Three-quarters of the
reductin in government revenue comes from the wealthy.

Because the wealthy pay considerably more tax both in absolute terms and in >proportion.

No, it is because the government chose to structure the tax bribes in
that way.

If they had
arranged the tax changes differently, they would have been able to
give those with very high taxable incomes small or no reductions in
tax - or even tax tax increases.

Since that would lead to a less fair tax system it's not surprising they >didn't do that.

They have not made the tax system any fairer - but we need to agree to
disagree on that one.

"Mathematically" that could be
achieved in many ways, but two obvious ones are to either reduce the
threshold for the top tax rate to produce the same tax as currently
for anyone with taxable income equal to that lower threshold, or to
increase the top tax rate by say 1%. You work it out, Allistar

Why would I try and work out less fair ways of taxing people? I would like
it to be fairer.

When did you stop beating your wife, Allistar?

You can't take
water out of the bottom of a bucket without the water at the top dropping. >> The group of New Zeaand taxpayers are not a bucket - see above.

is not good for domestic businesses, or for the country.

Yes, it is good for both of those things. Businesses benefit as business >>>owners have a higher ability to reinvest. This is good for the number of >>>staff employed as well as the staff remuneration. It grows those local >>>businesses as the money those business earn can stay within the business >>>allowing them to grow.

Rubbish - many local business are suffering as domestic demand has
fallen due to the large number of people who struggle to purchase
basic necessities.

I don't think that has anything to do with the effectively negative amount
of tax such people pay.

You ignore GST and other taxes, but your comment is also irrelevant.

Yes there are some who will benefit - those
catering for wealthy New Zealanders - and will include importers of
high end goods, travel agencies, cruise ships, and overseas
destinations.

Confiscating less money from a business is good for that business. There >>>is no logic in saying that confiscating more money from a business is good >>>for that business.

Try watching Gareth Morgan argueing that allowing him to have an
effective tax rate of less than 10% is not fair

And yet he hasn't volunteered to pay what he thinks is the right amount. >That's because he doesn't want more of just his money taken from him, he >wants more of other peoples' money taken from them. That's unethical.

No, he wants a tax system that does not effectively exempt or defer a
large source of income from taxation.

- and that if the
wealthy paid their fair share it would be possible to reduce tax rates
for most New Zealanders.

They pay far more than their fair share already.

Again your definition of fair is not that of the majority of New
Zealanders

A high proportion of New Zealanders pay no net tax anyway. That is, the
state gives them more money than it takes from them.

Again you ignore those bits of reality you don't want to acknowledge,
and you ignore the support New Zealanders have given for government
assistance to those most in need in our community..

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

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 13:58:44 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 10:31:01 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On 2 Jun 2017 08:22:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

[snip for brevity]

I agree, Gordon. Low taxes are not the answer, and we are starting to >>>>> get a few wealthy people saying that reducing taxes for the wealthy

Every vote is equal. Or are you implying that these few people have more >>>>power on voting day than the other 3 or so million eligible voters?

No, I am implying that the people lookig for a fairer tax basis are not
just those on low and middle incomes - they include wealthy people who
believe they will gain more from policies that reduce inequality than
they would from a tax cut that does not help business or New Zealand

What you're saying is confusing. You seem to be arguing for a fairer tax >>system on one hand but you're supporting a progressive tax system on the >>other. You can't have both.

Your view of "fair" not shared by the majority of people that have
voted for parties that support a progressive system for many years.

Which parties have supported a fair (aka flat) tax system? The popularity of
an idea does not determine whether it is fair or not.

(the majority of the recent tax reductions are going to people that
are on the top tax bracket)

With a progressive tax system those that earn more pay proportionally >>>>more. Therefore when taxes are reduced those that earn more will pay >>>>proportionally less than others. This is simple mathematics.

No it is not. National have arranged tax bribes (not effective unless
they are elected) that would give 20 to 35 times more money in hand to
the wealthy than to low income New Zealanders.

The government is giving wealthy people money? Can you provide some >>evidence of this?

I am sure that you were not in any doubt that I was talking of the
reductions in tax announced in the budget (or the 2009 tax changes -
they also were disproportionately skewed in favour of the wealthy).

Are you saying you can't provide evidence of the government giving wealthy people money? You said "...that would give 20 to 35 times more money in hand
to the wealthy than to low income New Zealanders". That's such a bold claim that you must have facts to back it up, surely?

Three-quarters of the
reductin in government revenue comes from the wealthy.

Because the wealthy pay considerably more tax both in absolute terms and
in proportion.

No, it is because the government chose to structure the tax bribes in
that way.

The majority of income tax is paid by the wealthy. Any reduction in income taxes will see the wealthy pay proportionally less (because the tax system
sees that they pay proportionally more). It is simple mathematics.

If they had
arranged the tax changes differently, they would have been able to
give those with very high taxable incomes small or no reductions in
tax - or even tax tax increases.

Since that would lead to a less fair tax system it's not surprising they >>didn't do that.

They have not made the tax system any fairer - but we need to agree to disagree on that one.

Fairer = more towards being equal. That means a flat tax rate (or even
better, only charging people for services they use and not for services they don't).

"Mathematically" that could be
achieved in many ways, but two obvious ones are to either reduce the
threshold for the top tax rate to produce the same tax as currently
for anyone with taxable income equal to that lower threshold, or to
increase the top tax rate by say 1%. You work it out, Allistar

Why would I try and work out less fair ways of taxing people? I would like >>it to be fairer.

When did you stop beating your wife, Allistar?

It's no wonder I tend to avoid discussions with you Rich. I would like to
think that such a statement is beneath you but it seems not.

You can't take
water out of the bottom of a bucket without the water at the top >>>>dropping.

The group of New Zeaand taxpayers are not a bucket - see above.

is not good for domestic businesses, or for the country.

Yes, it is good for both of those things. Businesses benefit as business >>>>owners have a higher ability to reinvest. This is good for the number of >>>>staff employed as well as the staff remuneration. It grows those local >>>>businesses as the money those business earn can stay within the business >>>>allowing them to grow.

Rubbish - many local business are suffering as domestic demand has
fallen due to the large number of people who struggle to purchase
basic necessities.

I don't think that has anything to do with the effectively negative amount >>of tax such people pay.

You ignore GST and other taxes, but your comment is also irrelevant.

The wealthy pay more in absolute terms and as a percentage of their income
in GST than the less wealthy.

Yes there are some who will benefit - those
catering for wealthy New Zealanders - and will include importers of
high end goods, travel agencies, cruise ships, and overseas
destinations.

Confiscating less money from a business is good for that business. There >>>>is no logic in saying that confiscating more money from a business is >>>>good for that business.

Try watching Gareth Morgan argueing that allowing him to have an
effective tax rate of less than 10% is not fair

And yet he hasn't volunteered to pay what he thinks is the right amount. >>That's because he doesn't want more of just his money taken from him, he >>wants more of other peoples' money taken from them. That's unethical.

No, he wants a tax system that does not effectively exempt or defer a
large source of income from taxation.

What source of income is that? If you mean property investment you must be aware that such gains are taxable right?

- and that if the
wealthy paid their fair share it would be possible to reduce tax rates
for most New Zealanders.

They pay far more than their fair share already.

Again your definition of fair is not that of the majority of New
Zealanders

Another claim that needs backing up with evidence. Where is your cite that shows what the majority of New Zealanders think on this matter?

A high proportion of New Zealanders pay no net tax anyway. That is, the >>state gives them more money than it takes from them.

Again you ignore those bits of reality you don't want to acknowledge,

Which bits in particular?

Do you deny that those on lower incomes by and large receive more from the state financially than the state takes from them?

and you ignore the support New Zealanders have given for government assistance to those most in need in our community.

That's irrelevant to what's fair. An idea doesn't gain credence by having
many people subscribe to it.
--
"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 4/06/2017 2:30 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 10:31:01 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On 2 Jun 2017 08:22:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

[snip for brevity]

I agree, Gordon. Low taxes are not the answer, and we are starting to
get a few wealthy people saying that reducing taxes for the wealthy

Every vote is equal. Or are you implying that these few people have more
power on voting day than the other 3 or so million eligible voters?

No, I am implying that the people lookig for a fairer tax bsis are not
just those on low and middle incomes - they include wealthy people who believe they will gain more from policies that reduce inequality than
they would from a tax cut that does not help business or New Zealand

(the majority of the recent tax reductions are going to people that
are on the top tax bracket)

With a progressive tax system those that earn more pay proportionally more. >> Therefore when taxes are reduced those that earn more will pay
proportionally less than others. This is simple mathematics.

No it is not. National have arranged tax bribes (not effective unless
they are elected) that would give 20 to 35 times more money in hand to
the wealthy than to low income New Zealanders. Three-quaters of the
reductin n government revenue comes from the wealthy. If they had
arranged the tax changes differently, they would have been able to
give those with very high taxable incomes small or no reductions in
tax - or even tax tax increases. "Mathematically" that could be
achieved in many ways, but two obvious ones are to either reduce the threshold for the top tax rate to produce the same tax as currently
for anyone with taxable income equal to that lower threshold, or to
increase the top tax rate by say 1%. You work it out, Allistar

You can't take
water out of the bottom of a bucket without the water at the top dropping.

The group of New Zeaand taxpayers are not a bucket - see above.

is not good for domestic businesses, or for the country.

Yes, it is good for both of those things. Businesses benefit as business
owners have a higher ability to reinvest. This is good for the number of
staff employed as well as the staff remuneration. It grows those local
businesses as the money those business earn can stay within the business
allowing them to grow.

Rubbish - many local business are suffering as domestic demand has
fallen due to the large number of people who struggle to purchase
basic necessities. Yes there are some who will benefit - those
catering for wealthy New Zealanders - and will include importers of
high end goods, travel agencies, cruise ships, and overseas
destinations.

Confiscating less money from a business is good for that business. There is >> no logic in saying that confiscating more money from a business is good for >> that business.

Try watching Gareth Morgan argueing that allowing him to have an
effective tax rate of less than 10% is not fair - and that if the
wealthy paid theor fair share it would be possible to reduce tax rates
for most New Zealanders.

Interesting considering that little Andy who you support mindlessly not
only pays zero tax but gets a 'rich prick' salary that is extracted from
the long suffering taxpayers of New Zealand.

Besides we're still waiting for you to tell us what a fair share of tax
is. Do you pay your fair share Rich or are you like me a drain on the
long suffering taxpayer?

Pooh

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

On 6/06/2017 4:14 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 13:58:44 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 10:31:01 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On 2 Jun 2017 08:22:24 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

[snip for brevity]

I agree, Gordon. Low taxes are not the answer, and we are starting to >>>>> get a few wealthy people saying that reducing taxes for the wealthy

Every vote is equal. Or are you implying that these few people have more >>>> power on voting day than the other 3 or so million eligible voters?

No, I am implying that the people lookig for a fairer tax basis are not
just those on low and middle incomes - they include wealthy people who
believe they will gain more from policies that reduce inequality than
they would from a tax cut that does not help business or New Zealand

What you're saying is confusing. You seem to be arguing for a fairer tax
system on one hand but you're supporting a progressive tax system on the
other. You can't have both.

Your view of "fair" not shared by the majority of people that have
voted for parties that support a progressive system for many years.

(the majority of the recent tax reductions are going to people that
are on the top tax bracket)

With a progressive tax system those that earn more pay proportionally
more. Therefore when taxes are reduced those that earn more will pay
proportionally less than others. This is simple mathematics.

No it is not. National have arranged tax bribes (not effective unless
they are elected) that would give 20 to 35 times more money in hand to
the wealthy than to low income New Zealanders.

The government is giving wealthy people money? Can you provide some evidence >> of this?

I am sure that you were not in any doubt that I was talking of the
reductions in tax announced in the budget (or the 2009 tax changes -
they also were disproportionately skewed in favour of the wealthy).

Three-quarters of the
reductin in government revenue comes from the wealthy.

Because the wealthy pay considerably more tax both in absolute terms and in >> proportion.

No, it is because the government chose to structure the tax bribes in
that way.

If they had
arranged the tax changes differently, they would have been able to
give those with very high taxable incomes small or no reductions in
tax - or even tax tax increases.

Since that would lead to a less fair tax system it's not surprising they
didn't do that.

They have not made the tax system any fairer - but we need to agree to disagree on that one.

"Mathematically" that could be
achieved in many ways, but two obvious ones are to either reduce the
threshold for the top tax rate to produce the same tax as currently
for anyone with taxable income equal to that lower threshold, or to
increase the top tax rate by say 1%. You work it out, Allistar

Why would I try and work out less fair ways of taxing people? I would like >> it to be fairer.

When did you stop beating your wife, Allistar?

You can't take
water out of the bottom of a bucket without the water at the top dropping. >>> The group of New Zeaand taxpayers are not a bucket - see above.

is not good for domestic businesses, or for the country.

Yes, it is good for both of those things. Businesses benefit as business >>>> owners have a higher ability to reinvest. This is good for the number of >>>> staff employed as well as the staff remuneration. It grows those local >>>> businesses as the money those business earn can stay within the business >>>> allowing them to grow.

Rubbish - many local business are suffering as domestic demand has
fallen due to the large number of people who struggle to purchase
basic necessities.

I don't think that has anything to do with the effectively negative amount >> of tax such people pay.

You ignore GST and other taxes, but your comment is also irrelevant.

Yes there are some who will benefit - those
catering for wealthy New Zealanders - and will include importers of
high end goods, travel agencies, cruise ships, and overseas
destinations.

Confiscating less money from a business is good for that business. There >>>> is no logic in saying that confiscating more money from a business is good >>>> for that business.

Try watching Gareth Morgan argueing that allowing him to have an
effective tax rate of less than 10% is not fair

And yet he hasn't volunteered to pay what he thinks is the right amount.
That's because he doesn't want more of just his money taken from him, he
wants more of other peoples' money taken from them. That's unethical.

No, he wants a tax system that does not effectively exempt or defer a
large source of income from taxation.

- and that if the
wealthy paid their fair share it would be possible to reduce tax rates
for most New Zealanders.

They pay far more than their fair share already.

Again your definition of fair is not that of the majority of New
Zealanders

Nope. But it's interesting that you and Labour keep making this claim
without actually telling us what you consider is fair for the wealthy Rich.

A high proportion of New Zealanders pay no net tax anyway. That is, the
state gives them more money than it takes from them.

Again you ignore those bits of reality you don't want to acknowledge,
and you ignore the support New Zealanders have given for government assistance to those most in need in our community..

Yet again you display a total lack of comprehension Rich. FACT: More New Zealanders pay zero tax than don't pay a 'fair' (you and the left have
never ever defined what this is) share Rich.

Pooh

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