The tax burden

August 6th, 2012 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Rob Stock at Stuff reports:

The parliamentarians found it was more difficult to calculate an average rate for middle income New Zealanders, but an indicative comparator for someone on an average wage was 17.9 per cent, although Working for Families entitlements would reduce the average net rate to 8.4 per cent for a single-earner parent with one child, or 2.3 per cent with two children.

Yep, most people who have children pay little or no tax.

Since the changes in tax rates things will have changed a little, and the wealthiest will have seen their effective tax rates drop on paper at least, because the IRD has been strenuously pursuing them to extract more tax, and the IRD expects to bring in an extra half a billion dollars in revenue from the high net wealth individuals in the next 10 years through its crackdown.

Good – I support a low rate, broad base, with few exceptions.

But actually, when it comes to income taxes, New Zealand is something of a tax haven, because when Working for Families rebates are taken into account, 40 to 50 percent of households “effectively pay no net income tax, and roughly 40 to 50 percent of total net income tax is paid by those in the top 10 per cent income bracket, suggesting that the tax burden falls most heavily on the wealthy”.

Indeed. I’ll be blogging more on this, based on some interesting tax data I got under the OIA from the IRD.

Tags:

68 Responses to “The tax burden”

  1. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    “suggesting that the tax burden falls most heavily on the wealthy”.”

    Argh, FFS, does ANYONE these days understand the difference between “wealthy” and “high earner”? I earn $200k+. My house is worth $1M, I have debt on that house of around $110K. By no stretch of the imagination am I wealthy by any meaningful measure. Yes, I earn well, but Im taxed fucking hard, and raising three kids isnt cheap.

    And no, Im not having whinge – I would just like a churnalist who understands that because someone earns more than they do they arent wealthy. Semantics, maybe, proper use of the Queens Hin-glish, yes.

    /rant

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. flipper (3,550 comments) says:

    David, all of what you say, and what Rob Stock says, must mean that you are heretics. You cannot possibly be right. You should be burnt at the stake for heresy.

    The red melons, russel with one L (his parents were as good at spelling as the red melons are at economics) in particular, and labour (including such “neutral and informed” folk as Kelly, McCarten, Little et al ), say the top 10 per cemt of earners do not pay enough tax.

    Then, course, the red melon fools, want another tax to pay for ChCh. But hang on, they say. It is to be a “levy”, not a tax. AH HA … so that would mean that all the non tax paying families would also pay the levy, would it not?

    No, no, the red melons say. Just the top 10 per cent.

    The worst part about all this is that not one, single “reporter” has the guts to call them out and tell them, face to face, that they are simply lying, or dumb, or both. Lord help us …,.,.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mister nui (973 comments) says:

    Well said hmmmo. I stated on here a few weeks back that a household in NZ should not be considered high income until it earns at least $600,000 p.a. – of course I was attacked by all and sundry.

    But, until we change the collective NZ mindset of envy to aspiration, we will never be a high wage country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Ed Snack (1,737 comments) says:

    I don’t “get” the Tax Haven comment. Tax haven’s are always associated with high earners and high net worth people not paying tax. It may be true that the truly wealthy in NZ do actually pay less tax, but it is difficult as a high earner not to pay a lot of tax. Top 10% paying 40-50% of net income tax sounds a bit light to me but I’ll defer to the research.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RRM (9,445 comments) says:

    DPF:
    Yep, most people who have children pay little or no tax.

    :lol: LOL – I wish I could get onto this supposed “no net tax” gravy train that the likes of [ DPF / Cactus Kate / and other childless political pundits ] keep insisting is available to working parents in New Zealand!

    It sounds awesome :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. flipper (3,550 comments) says:

    RRM….you are as well informed as the red melons:

    Markhams Accountants report that Households earning more than $120,000 pa pay 97 per cent of net individual income tax revenue, while the top 10 per cent of households generate 71 per cent of the individual tax take.

    Further, Households earning less than $50,000 (43 per cent of households) receive more in income support than they pay in income tax, on a net basis. Income tax paid by households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 effectively pays for this refund.” – Karl du Fresne, Dominion Post, 20.12.2011, P B5

    WFF starts to reduce at about $50,000. But below that anything paid with one hand is taken back, plus a “bonus”, with the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. YesWeDid (1,029 comments) says:

    ‘Yep, most people who have children pay little or no tax.’

    Of course they are still paying GST so the statement is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. wreck1080 (3,730 comments) says:

    @RRM : On what basis is DPF wrong?

    I can see how it might be true. WFF is a horrible scheme and is there to distort the tax system — Sounds like it came right out of a book written by Teresa Gattung (confuse and obfuscate tactics).

    The problem for the lefties is that they are already gouging the rich and it gets increasingly difficult to take more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    Further, Households earning less than $50,000 (43 per cent of households) receive more in income support than they pay in income tax

    The words “on average” should be inserted before the receive more in this sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    RRM:

    I think what these WFF qualifying people feel on their pocketbooks are rates/and the hugely expensive cost of children. The numbers are what they are. Even accounting for PAYE, what they get back from WFF equalises for this.

    What this really shows is why Labour’s ‘utterly unaffordable cost of living’ rhetoric is a damb squib, because it is a total lie.

    17.9 percent tax for a person with no children, 8.4% with one, and 2.3% with two children. This is alongside a historically high NZ dollar coupled with historically low inflation – the NZ dollar actually right now buys more then it has for a very long time. Combine that with the China free trade deal and the cheap goods now available in NZ and you have a situation where the reality is very very different from Labour’s rhetoric.

    Next time you hear ‘there are no jobs’ note that the next line is ‘worth doing for kiwis’ – and then note whether or not you have done ALL of the jobs they say are below the dignity of Labour voters, i.e. milk-hands, retail, social work, retired-care, labouring, fruit-picking, kitchen-hand, road-worker, construction labourer, child-care, teacher’s aide, office gopher, cleaner, glassie, barman etc.

    I was actually on the standard and all of those jobs above were demeaned as being ‘too low paid for kiwis to do’. What a joke. I’ve done all of those jobs. In the states you could get 4 dollars an hour for a lot of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. seanmaitland (455 comments) says:

    “Yep, most people who have children pay little or no tax.”

    Sorry, but that is complete rubbish. Are you claiming that the majority of families are on WFF?

    Even if 50% of families are on WFF, your statement is not true.

    I have a child and I don’t get WFF. Out of 15 friends of mine who have children, only 2 of them are on WFF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    Sean you are sweet because you live in reality.

    It’s the people who ‘get’ WFF then complain about cost of living, moan that ‘rich’ people aren’t paying their ‘fair’ share of tax, moan about GST etc who are revealed by this information.

    Just out of interest, why don’t you get WFF?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. lyndon (330 comments) says:

    I earn $200k+. My house is worth $1M, I have debt on that house of around $110K. By no stretch of the imagination am I wealthy by any meaningful measure.

    Um. Is net worth a meaningful measure?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. mister nui (973 comments) says:

    Ed Snack, based on 2008 numbers, the top 0.38% (13,130/3,414,830) (which are solely those earning >250k) of taxpayers pay 9.4% (25.96B/275.38B) of all income tax! That’s a helluva chunk for such a small group of taxpayers.

    So, you can see why most of these high earners try everything under the sun to minimise tax when Liebore and the melons come out with their soak-the-rich tax policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    A land tax would sort us out:

    Remuera households could be paying $6500 each and those on the North Shore $1300-$4000 a year. Financier Mark Hotchin of Hanover could be paying almost $100,000 a year for his three-section block in Paritai Drive, Orakei, and Prime Minister John Key would be up for much the same on his slice of St Stephens Ave in Parnell.
    Southlanders, living on New Zealand’s lowest-price housing land, would be paying just $30 a year for the average section.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10623183

    Retirees might be forced to sell from expensive neighbourhoods but is that so bad?

    “Because of the size of the land base (approximately $450 – $480 bn, prior to any
    negative impact on land values as a result of the announcement of the tax) a large
    amount of revenue could be raised at a low effective rate.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Brian Smaller (3,989 comments) says:

    I have never claimed WFF because I opposed it in 2005 and still do, despite being eligible for it the entire time. It is morally reprehensible to steal money off some people to let other people buy ipods for their kids (Yes, I remember the Labour ads).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (9,445 comments) says:

    Flipper – Good comment, ta for those figures.

    So, when DPF said: Yep, most people who have children pay little or no tax, what he actually should have said was

    Yep, some people who have children pay little or no tax. Except for RRM and anyone else like him who has kids, one income, and yet is still paying plenty of net income tax to subsidise the lower-income families.

    I would have thought the Nation Party blog would be interested in keeping the votes of people like me, and not smear us as basically worthless eaters little better than beneficiaries… :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Retirees might be forced to sell from expensive neighbourhoods but is that so bad?

    Yes, actually.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    Good on you Brian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. JeffW (320 comments) says:

    I call for “No Representation without Taxation”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    I’m willing to give up my vote to not pay tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Griff (6,749 comments) says:

    FFS
    there are some very very greedy people on here
    lets try 200,000per year
    that’s the earnings of someone on the minimum wage for… 43.6 ….hours a day 365 days a year
    or 24 x 7 x two years
    try telling that your income is not high and your not wealthy to someone on the minimum wage
    If you have failed to become very wealthy on an income at or above this level its because you have spent and wasted way to much on fancy goods euro cars wine labels and other rubbish
    at 200,000 you disposable income is more than 1000 times that of someone on the minimum wage
    fucken greed has fucked us
    Management has failed to deliver increases in shareholder value even with these high incomes
    few company’s do better than bank investment rates in return
    I are not a so called occupy idiot but if you can not see the problem inherent in today’s outrageous remuneration levels you really need help

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Yoza (1,536 comments) says:

    The tax the rich pay is proportional to the wealth they strip mine from New Zealand society, if the rich do not want to pay a disproportionate amount of tax they will, necessarily, have to accept a smaller percentage of this country’s GDP.

    As the greedy few cannot begin to imagine a society built on common human decency they will be forced, through the tax system, to continue compensating those whom they shut out of participating meaningfully in the socio-economic environment.

    Most here will not even begin to entertain the ultimate bloody consequence of a society based on Ayn Rand’s (and Farrar’s) weird fantasies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    And all of a sudden the idiots come out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Griff (6,749 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac
    Please refute my post
    save the idiot talk for the uninformed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. seanmaitland (455 comments) says:

    @UpAndComer – my girlfriend and I have income of around $184k, so no Working For Families – but even if I qualified for it I wouldn’t take it as its against my principles to have children and then expect others to pay for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    seanmaitland – if I had a kid and qualified for WFF, I’d take it. It’s money that you don’t have to earn.
    Griff – if the cap fits

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    @lyndon: Yes, its is. My net worth is roughly – depends on how you value a company – in the region of $3 to $5M. But tahts tied up in a house and a company, neither of which make me “wealthy”. Yes, I have assets, but the liquidity of those is zero (house) and 10% to 15% PA (company), and even in NZ, thats not “wealthy”.

    @Griff, you had me at “fucken greed has fucked us” – that was so awesome :)

    My company has increased shareholder value over the last 8 years from zero to $5M. Do the math you twazzock. And I hate to disabuse you, you might not be an occupy idiot, but you are an idiot – the context doesnt matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Griff (6,749 comments) says:

    So your salary has been 30% of the increase in share holder Value

    if I had shares in a company and the top management was eating 30 % of value I would and have bailed out
    You are not the same as a large corporation at a guess you are for all intents the company

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Most here will not even begin to entertain the ultimate bloody consequence of a society based on Ayn Rand’s (and Farrar’s) weird fantasies

    Yes, freedom and liberty, with the consequence being environment where enterprise and effort are rewarded while laziness and indolence as worshiped by the yoza’s of this world is not. This seems to be working for the developing world, while lazy western nations have allowed social bloat to cripple their childrens’ futures.

    NZ should set up as a tax haven for the uber-wealthy fleeing the rich-prick envy tax exploitation of struggling western governments. Make it easy for these people to work and live here, bringing their capital, their consumption, their expertise and their job creation potential.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. gravedodger (1,514 comments) says:

    GST is not a tax it is a levy and voluntary.

    Dont spend, dont pay the ‘levy’

    The Gummint taxes my income and then hands much of it back at years end.

    The Gummint never hands back any GST levies so I aviod them where ever I can. Self sufficiency, green dollars, mutual assistance.

    Because so many never pay Taxes due to lower levels of ‘income’ of course they support taxing the rich and they think $50k is rich.

    Pfffft.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. tom hunter (4,399 comments) says:

    As much as I like seeing rich pricks speak out about the reality of “rich” in NZ, I think you should all understand that the majority of people in this country – including any number of National Party voters – just don’t get it at all.

    Put it this way, if some NZ politician had stood up and given Obama’s now infamous, You didn’t build that, speech in NZ he would never have had to go on defence as he has had to do in the USA. A fundamental cultural difference between NZ and the USA that seems to lie beyond politics and politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. dime (9,424 comments) says:

    “Yep, most people who have children pay little or no tax.”

    Makes me sick to my stomach!

    Maybe id be a little less sick if i wasnt also thought of as an asshole for making good money.

    The only consolidation is that as a single white male earning 200k i have a reasonably fun lifestyle :D im currently eying up a swimming pool for my estate :) its probably going to be next summer though. luckily my brother who earns the same money is putting in a beast of a pool for this summer :D

    “at 200,000 you disposable income is more than 1000 times that of someone on the minimum wage
    fucken greed has fucked us”

    1000 times? how did you get that figure? how do you know?

    WFF – cant the gay mafia start a war on this. it discriminates against them cause they dont have as many kids!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. fooman (38 comments) says:

    A few comments:

    1 – hmmokrightitis: You are in the top decile for both household income and “wealth”. I suspect that 200k+ p.a. would put you in the top 5%. In a room of 100 random New Zealanders, 90+ people would be earning less than you. You may not feel wealthy, but you are. In fact, with a net worth between $3MM and $5MM, you are probably in the top 1% of NZ’ers with respect to net value. Or 0.06 to 0.1 of a John Key.

    2 – flipper: With respect to: “Markhams Accountants report that Households earning more than $120,000 pa pay 97 per cent of net individual income tax revenue, while the top 10 per cent of households generate 71 per cent of the individual tax take.”

    Remember, that is “households” not individuals. Stats NZ does not have easily available figures for the share of income, but some but 10-year old household wealth figures (a good proxy for income) are available [1]: The top 10% of earners have 53% of the total wealth, averaging ~$850,000 each. The top 1% had 16.4% of the total wealth, averaging $2.6MM.

    10% of households, having 53% of the wealth, pay 71% of tax is more informative than “10% of households pay 71% of tax”. Perhaps DPF will have the income shares of the deciles in his figures, rather than wealth figures.

    3 – GST and personal expenditure

    When I read this article yesterday, the most blatant omission was GST. Everyone pays GST to some degree, but lower income households pay much more as a percentage of their income. Given it has been reported that the average NZ’er has only $1700 in cash savings [e.g. 2], this points to most of the income being spent – either on essentials (food, housing, power etc.) or non-essentials (big TV, Sky, ciggies, booze etc.) Regardless of the expenditure target, such expenditure represents income to the government and the other ticket clippers (retailers, wholesalers, freight) taking advantage of the money-go-round.

    Sources:

    1 – Brian Easton. ‘Income and wealth distribution – Wealth’, Te Ara – the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, updated 15-Apr-10
    2 – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/kate-shuttleworth/news/article.cfm?a_id=780&objectid=10817584

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    Dear god griff, you realise when you make assumptions you just highlight what a dick you are?

    “So your salary has been 30% of the increase in share holder Value

    if I had shares in a company and the top management was eating 30 % of value I would and have bailed out
    You are not the same as a large corporation at a guess you are for all intents the company”

    Im a director and shareholder. I started the company 8 years ago, with money borrowed against my house. I dont work in the business, havent for 5 years, and it pays me a small – as noted – return annually. Its a build to sell model. I make my $200K elsewhere.

    So, you based your whole deranged argument on a flawed assumption, rather than seekign the facts, simply leapt to a fundamentally flawed assumption and went fucking mental.

    Youre my ex-wife, arent you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. dime (9,424 comments) says:

    “You may not feel wealthy, but you are. ” – shows just how poor this country is. way to go socialism light!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    dime, +1.

    Im not wealthy. And thats our issue – we look to NZ to see whether we are wealthy or not. I dont feel wealthy, Im not wealthy. Yes, if I sold my house, but I would live where? And my company?And even then, $5M – really, thats wealthy? Bullshit. Compared to other NZ’ers, yeah, and, so what??

    But I have three kids to raise, and no WFF middle class rebates for me. And even if I was entitled, I wouldnt take it – I pay my own way, and get what I can afford, including kids. Now, if it was $20M plus, now, thats wealthy – and yes, its all relative. The man with $1 in his pocket calls the man with $100 a rich prick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    We really need to upgrade what we think of as rich in this country. My god I think you need to be on half a million a year at least to be rich, and only if a substantial portion of that isn’t salary income which is being taxed like the dickens, and only if it’s not just revenue that will become a fraction of that in actual profit.

    To put a 39% tax rate in perspective at 70001 per year, that makes your actual income 42700. That’s unbelievable. Suddenly, you are actually average wage. That means you have to work 2 and a bit days in the 5 day week before you’re actually earning anything. Up until then you’re paying for everybody else.

    The 2008-2009 tax rates are unbelievable. 33% on $40001. Unbelievable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. fooman (38 comments) says:

    “To put a 39% tax rate in perspective at 70001 per year, that makes your actual income 42700. That’s unbelievable.”

    And incorrect. The marginal rate on 70001+ is 39%. Someone with a taxable income of 70001 p.a. pays $14,020.33 in income tax, for a income after tax of $55,980.57.

    FM

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. thedavincimode (6,531 comments) says:

    Anyone want to earn $200k+??

    Then get off your arse and go do it. You’ve had the same opportunities as the people who do. So why aren’t you? Didn’t want to study? Didn’t like school? Who does?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RRM (9,445 comments) says:

    dime – you are too young to be that bitter & twisted about the socialists.

    You’ll end up like Redbaiter if you don’t learn to take it easy :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    That we’ll even entertain a discussion on the financial metrics of ‘rich’ just show how well the neo-socialists have framed this debate.

    We are all rich in different dimensions – artistic, sporting, knowledge, skills, wisdom, compassion, empathy, and yes, wealth. Most of use are rich on several dimensions. But the ability to control people by igniting their envy appears most potent when wealth is targeted.

    If the energy consumed by rich-prick envy was instead committed to developing ‘richness’ is any or those dimensions we’d all be much happier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RRM (9,445 comments) says:

    kk – and if the energy consumed by poor-people’s-tax-breaks envy was similarly used for positive good (instead of making threads like these) where would you be? eh? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. thedavincimode (6,531 comments) says:

    You’ll end up like Redbaiter

    Only if he starts having sex with helium inflated Sarah Palin dolls. Or is that now a Colin Craig doll? Who can keep up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Rick Rowling (801 comments) says:

    How to spot a nil (or negative) tax payer:

    They are the ones complaining loudest that others should pay more tax, and the state should provide more “free” services.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. lyndon (330 comments) says:

    Old NYT blog on why high-income people don’t feel well off http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/why-so-many-rich-people-dont-feel-very-rich/

    I’ll add the consideration that people generally match their lifestyle to their income, so everybody tends to have *exactly* what they need to live and less than what they aspire to.

    [edit: the NZ curve will be less steep than the US but more or less the same shape. And Apparently Ann Romney doesn't think she's wealthy either. So much for the $20mil threshold.]
    Me, I prefer to settle these questions using statistics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. dime (9,424 comments) says:

    RRM – im a happy dude :D just get sick of the losers who want something for nothing.

    the same sort of people that tell us “capitalism has failed” as they check facebook on their iphone…

    a lot of people dont seem to accept that struggling is a part of life. Dime has struggled at various times. made huge sacrifices in lifestyle to get ahead. end result – self made and happy!!

    it reminds me of this herald “article” i saw a few years ago (whilst hanging at the pauanui beach house). It was a picture of two westies. the guy was skinny, long hair, goatee, bad skin etc and the chick was a giant fatty. they had the kid their and a pile of burger king on the table and the caption read “its not fair, we are struggling on the benefit, the rich should pay more” hahaha how do you fix that thinking? real pieces of shit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. flipper (3,550 comments) says:

    fooman @ 11.46…..

    The point is that for the purposes of WFF, household income is the figure used by IRD. IRD even includes any family support paid by an estranged (divorced or separated) partner in the “household” income in detemining WFF. That family maintenance payment is paid from tax paid income and is not taxable in the hands of the recipient.

    But it is all part of the household income assessed by IRD.

    Now let us remember what the taxrates have been from 1 October 2010:

    $1 to $14,000 – 10.5%; $14001 to $48,000 – 17.5%; $48001 to $ 70000 – 30%; $70001 and above – 33%.

    Is that not that a fair, progressive scale, given that there are very, very few “PAYE tax breaks” in 2012 ??????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. mister nui (973 comments) says:

    Griff – I own my own business and earn for myself well in excess of 200k p.a. To earn this, I put in a huge amount of hours and spend a helluva lot of time overseas away from my family. I am a sole shareholder and director and therefore any profit made is MINE, so what I value as a suitable return on investment is exclusively my determination, not yours Griff.

    I have a number of contractors who work for me who earn circa 200k, they are paid based on market rates and on the value they return to me as a shareholder. Not greed, because you think it is greed Griff, but simply on the return on investment that they are able to generate. Why should you, or anyone else for that matter be able to determine what is a suitable return for a private company? And in that, what management is delivering to shareholders?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    Because mister nui, griff is a ‘socialist’, and he, like all of them, know whats best.

    Like union leaders riding in Mercades limo’s, as they say, not as they do…

    So, hamnida, youve not given your PC away to charity yet – going to equalise the world in another way?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mister nui (973 comments) says:

    Oh fuck off yoza. So, I’m what you would consider wealthy and one of those who supposedly strip mines Money from the Nz economy. Yet, my business earns ~$10,000 from Nz each year, yet earns in excess of $2,000,000 from offshore – which is the foreign earnings that Nz so desperately needs. The money that funds you and your bludging mates lifestyles.

    That is why I despise bludging cunts like you, I spend my life working hard to support me and mine, and you and yours, then get accused of strip mining the economy. Get fucked yoza.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. wreck1080 (3,730 comments) says:

    Having been to the USA recently, then, you see ‘rich’. We don’t really have rich people in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. dime (9,424 comments) says:

    mister nui – well said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Griff (6,749 comments) says:

    griff is a ‘socialist’,

    Label
    gee does that mean I have to burn My collection of Christmas cards from Roger D
    I just fail to see a return to shareholders in the massive salary’s now the norm in the corporate world. The resent article in the herald was a reflection of this it creates a disconnect between the management and labour to the detriment of all
    I also think that the increases can not continue to be supported by society as a whole The effect of Compounding value dictates that this is so
    Henry ford paid his workers well because he recognised that workers were also the consumers of his product and to do so expanded the total market to the befit of all some thing that the corporate world has lost sight of

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    One thing that really annoys me is that people think those on higher than average incomes or those who own businesses just woke up one day and had it handed to them! They take the risks and make the sacrifices that most people aren’t prepared to because they can see the bigger picture. Instead of people being grateful for them employing other kiwis and putting money back into the economy; they get called greedy by someone too lazy to get off their ar&e and work for it! In my opinion greed is when you expect the lion share but aren’t prepared to earn it! I like living in a country where you can be successful if you are prepared to work hard and I am sick of the bludgers trying to hold us back!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Yoza (1,536 comments) says:

    mister nui (780) Says: “Oh fuck off yoza. So, I’m what you would consider wealthy…”

    Here ya go Mr Big, here’s a tissue, go mop up those tears while I sit back and enjoy your ‘hard earned’ tax dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. hmmokrightitis (1,508 comments) says:

    Well, lets stick with the Henry Ford model then shall we? Yeah, that’ll go well.

    Ive stuck my house up twice to get capital for a venture. First time failed spectacularly, spent 3 years paying it off. Second time, 8 years later, Im about to hit paydirt. And along the way my customers have extracted huge value from the web tools me and my team developed, and weve injected probably around $20M in total value into the local economy. And employed people on high wages.

    Worked weekends and nights, travelled for far too long, stayed in shit hotels and taken one step at a time. I come from a poor subarb in Auckland, dad worked, three sons, mum who volunteered for charity. I stayed at home to get my education, and worked my fucking arse off, sometimes in two jobs, 80 hours a week, to make it happen.

    The days of disconnect between management and labour are almost gone – becuase what we used to know as ‘labour’ has fundamentally changed, through education. And unless you get off your fat lazy arse, you will be left behind. If you are prepared to work and suffer a little hardship you can literally do anything.

    I was nearly bankrupted 22 years ago, and I swore blind then that one day I would look back at that moment and see it as the best thing that ever happened to me. It is, and it was.

    What you failed to mention griff was that H Ford also realised the different skill sets that management and ‘labour’ bought, and the differential value of those. If you want to bang shit with a hammer, thats fucking awesome. But dont count on me to top your income up because you cant be fucking arsed bettering yourself. You keep hammering shit, Ill keep selling and upskilling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. dime (9,424 comments) says:

    “What you failed to mention griff was that H Ford also realised the different skill sets that management and ‘labour’ bought, and the differential value of those. If you want to bang shit with a hammer, thats fucking awesome. But dont count on me to top your income up because you cant be fucking arsed bettering yourself. You keep hammering shit, Ill keep selling and upskilling.”

    OUTSTANDING!

    jealousy is not a good thing. stories like this dudes should be celebrated and seen as inspirational. not attacked.

    I have a buddy in aussie earning huge money. close to a million a year. he cant tell his family or friends though cause they get jealous/ nasty. what a fucked way to be. he has to phone Dime to brag and tell me whats up! inspires the shit out of me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Griff (6,749 comments) says:

    This from granny H
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10824558

    “The 2009 survey found 45 per cent of leaders were engaged, while 40 per cent of doers were engaged.

    This year that 5 per cent gap has widened to 25 per cent, with 57 per cent of leaders engaged and only 32 per cent of doers effectively participating in their work.

    Seemingly confirming what many in the lower ranks of organisations traditionally, instinctively know, the survey showed New Zealand managers may overestimate their leadership abilities. The discrepancy between how managers see themselves leading by example, and what sort of example those in their charge think they are setting, showed a huge 18 per cent differential.”

    This is the effect of the poor management skills and over the top pay. The long term result will not be increasing shareholder value
    If you take the workers away a company instantly collapses.If you take away the top management nothing happens for sometimes years

    Those of you who own your own businesses are not only “management” you are capital “shareholders” different from those I am talking about

    That includes you two
    dime and hmmokrightitis
    Do you understand the difference
    or did you both do MBA,s :lol:

    And no I am not jealous of those with lots of money many managers I have worked for are an object of pity successful in business does not make one successful in life or happy
    Would you like to say on your death bed I am rich or I have attained my dreams?

    Both would be nice :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. dime (9,424 comments) says:

    Griff – can you give me an example of a company who shed it’s top level management, didn’t replace them and saw no change or years?

    There are some amazing CEO’s out there who are worth every cent.

    You sound like the short of shit head “worker” that should be cut loose. A lot of companies build a great culture where the workers don’t suffer this disconnect you speak of.

    Check out yum brands as an example.

    Some workers don’t like to embrace a good company culture, too obsessed with not being rich. Easiest option is to piss them off and get good people.

    If people who want to achieve success are shown a path way then they are generally good for the business.

    If shit heads just want more money year after year for doing nothing extra then bad luck. We all know such people. The sort of assholes that would put down an extra three minutes on a time sheet cause they answered the phone or signed for a package during lunch break. Terrible workers who deserve to be poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. mister nui (973 comments) says:

    Yep dime, I’ve seen plenty of those short sighted lazy shits, especially when working on projects in Oz, and generally they’re all the union affiliated…. Some of the most ridiculous excuses I’ve ever seen come from those types, the ones that will spend an hour and a half explaining why they shouldn’t have to do something that only takes 10 minutes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    The top percentage pay this… The middle class pay that.. The undeserving at the bottom pay the other..

    Classic divide and conquer ..

    One tax rate for ALL.. Collected through a none clawed back Financial Trans-action Tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Griff (6,749 comments) says:

    I did not do the survey in the hearald
    According to that survey many NZ companies have unconnected staff
    That is a major fail
    Company directors and upper management are not aware of this
    again a major fail

    Management have been paying them self large increases in pay for years at the same time downsizing the numbers and decreasing the relative pay of those underneath them
    This is not good management its short term gain for the long term loss of the capital invested in staff
    Yes you and most other small businessmen understand that good staff need to be treated well many companies have loss site of this
    The classic one I have seen repeated more than once is laying of the maintenance staff and contracting out yes it gives a short term gain in the bottom line at the cost of the knowledge of the workers. in the two companies I have been working for that have done this the maintenance costs and down time increased over time as the loss of experience on specific machinery caught up
    Another case of short term Gain for long term loss I have seen is going to casual staff to avoid union involvement
    Yes the wage bill went down however the down time due to stupid mistakes repeated by the casual staff and the damage to machinery went up as did the training cost due to higher staff turn over also business was lost due to a decline in security of supply short term gain management get a bonus yet the real value of the company declined
    All three of these cases resulted in a decreases in the share price of the companies involved and not one of them survives on the NZ stock market However a quick check on LinkedIn tells me that the idiots responsible for this short sighted destruction of share holder Value have gone on to bigger roles

    I would not work for a company that treats its staff like shit if i was treated well I went the extra mile work the hours needed and smiled while doing it

    Now i work for my self and my manager is hard taskmaster when its needed a a total slacker when not :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. dime (9,424 comments) says:

    griff – i cant be assed reading most of your posts but correct me if im wrong..

    the herald asked people if they thought their boss was an asshole and did nothing and it came back in the positive. what a surprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    Motivation is a function of the value of a goal and the probability of achieving it, so you have to compare apples with apples. For example someone in IT with an idea can’t be compared to someone who just doesn’t have the grey matter to be a computer wizz.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    “Creating wealth, security and financial freedom is often an investor’s ultimate goal. 90% of millionaires get there by investing in real-estate”
    New Zealand has strong population growth due to its progressive immigration policy and birth rates. Many parts of the country are experiencing housing shortages translating into strong tenant demand and price growth. This trend is expected to continue with recent population projections by the New Zealand Department of Statistics forecasting up to 64% growth over the next 17 years. Auckland city is predicted to almost double its population in the next 40 years. For property investors, this represents outstanding potential growth in demand and return on investment. New Zealand’s property prices are also relatively undervalued compared to its closest neighbour Australia.
    http://www.nzps.com/
    ……….
    Land tax would be a good step towards a citizens stake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. seanmaitland (455 comments) says:

    @hj – landtax is worthless unless it is at the same time as drastically reducing income tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    You have to consider purchasing power not just net income and if property prices fall due to a land tax tht helps people at the bottom of the pyramid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.