Net income tax

June 26th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

taxwedge

As Labour have decided that they need to penalise those earning $150,000 by taxing them more, I thought I’d remind people of how much tax they already pay. Households (which is not the same as individuals, but that is all we have data for) earning over $150,000 make up 14% of households. They generate 42% of taxable income, pay 50% of gross and 73% of net .

This table was put out by Bill English a couple of weeks ago.

It only deals with income tax, and direct welfare payments such as benefits, WFF, PPL and accomodation supplement. I’d be keen to see a fuller dataset that includes indirect taxes (such as GST) and also indirect subsidies (education, health etc).

But it is still a very useful look at basically cash in the hand. It is how much you directly pay to the Government, and how much the Government directly gives to you.

As you can see households with income under $50,000 overall receive more in direct welfare than they pay in direct income tax. Their net income tax contribution is -30%.

Households with income from $50,000 to $110,000 contribute +30% of net income tax. So in one sense the total contribution from households under $110,000 is zero.

It is households over $110,000 that then make up the $18 billion of net income tax that the Crown gets to spend on education, health, defence etc. Of course the Crown also gets company tax and GST.

Tags: ,

66 Responses to “Net income tax”

  1. Vinick (217 comments) says:

    https://twitter.com/nzyoungnats/status/466771642408906752

    2% of individuals earn in excess of $150,000, and already pay 22% of the income tax.

    Well played Labour, well played.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Viking2 (11,568 comments) says:

    where’s GD today.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Harriet (5,131 comments) says:

    “…..As you can see households with income under $50,000 overall receive more in direct welfare than they pay in direct income tax…..Their net income tax contribution is -30%….”

    About $2,500.00 is the maximum. About $50 a week more from their employer ect would make it evens.

    It’s not an issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tvb (4,512 comments) says:

    Labour see this as a numbers game. They think they can keep screwing higher incomes more and more to deliver a few more dollars to the poor who are not paying tax already.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Floyd60 (92 comments) says:

    These figures are estimates only based on a notional taxable income. Very few in the higher income ranges will be actually paying the tax this table suggests. Loss making investment properties, donations and other legal avoidance strategies will ensure the figure actually paid is ashilly much lower.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. deckboy (18 comments) says:

    Looks like list MPs will just escape Labour’s new tax!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Floyd60 (81 comments) says:
    June 26th, 2014 at 9:13 am

    Now now Floyd, please don’t ruin the illusion with suggestions of reality ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dime (10,109 comments) says:

    ““…..As you can see households with income under $50,000 overall receive more in direct welfare than they pay in direct income tax…..Their net income tax contribution is -30%….”

    About $2,500.00 is the maximum. About $50 a week more from their employer ect would make it evens.

    It’s not an issue.”

    actually, it is an issue.

    Shit like this holds our economy back, it gets people addicted to govt hand outs. where is the pride?

    Harriet – right wing as they come! til you talk about handouts for “families” then its gimme gimme gimme

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Rightandleft (670 comments) says:

    A slightly higher tax rate set at that level doesn’t bother me as long as it is balanced by a raising of the threshold for the 30c or 33c rates (which begins at the ridiculously low level of 70k). A tax switch to benefit the middle class is preferable to an outright tax hike such as Labour seems to be proposing. You can push the 22% argument, but really that’s a debate over whether we should have a progressive tax system at all. As we have accepted the principle of progressive taxation (only ACT and Conservatives oppose it) the debate should be around what effect this tax hike could have on the economy. A tax hike takes money out of the economy and has the potential to harm it, but a tax switch such as National did last term shouldn’t have that effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. EAD (1,321 comments) says:

    @ Viking 2 –

    I wonder if because it is now coming up to election season, the likes of Kiwiblog and Whaleoil will be trying to “control the message”. I have noticed recently in General Debate that National are being shown up brilliantly by several posters as to the charlatans they are.

    It is one thing being attacked by the left which should be par for the course, but to be attacked from the right by what should be your core supporters must be getting to Farrar and Slater. There were 3 articles today which I was about to pen a riposte to but I guess I will not so DPF and Slater can convince us that National is not Labour in drag.

    Article 1) The deliberate weakening of border controls as “Adoption is being used by migrants as a way to “sneak” their relatives into the country, immigration advisers say” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfmc_id=280&objectid=11281808

    Article 2) National again ramping up taxes to bridge the budget deficit resulting from its unprecedented levels of spending as “Oil firms are expected to pass on to motorists the petrol excise rise of 3c a litre to be imposed on Tuesday.” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281835

    3) While it is the Socialist Bryce Edwards so I take it with a grain of salt, he questions “Is New Zealand an independent global citizen, or a US ally in all but name? ” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281603

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Harriet (5,131 comments) says:

    “…..actually, it is an issue…..Shit like this holds our economy back, it gets people addicted to govt hand outs. where is the pride?

    Harriet – right wing as they come! til you talk about handouts for “families” then its gimme gimme gimme….”

    ———————-
    “….About $2,500.00 is the maximum. About $50 a week more from their employer ect would make it evens….”

    Dime – as blind as they come!

    Small and large businesses get tax breaks – so should working parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    It is households over $110,000 that then make up the $18 billion of net income tax that the Crown gets to spend on education, health, defence etc. Of course the Crown also gets company tax and GST.

    But these people don’t vote for Labour – fuck em – it’s not about them, they just pay 22% of the tax. This is about getting social engineering back into government and building the next recession to punish the low earners while the wealthy rearrange their tax affairs.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. peterwn (3,307 comments) says:

    In 1999 Labour conned the electorate that tax increases would result in better education, health and welfare. Instead they squandered the money. Labour is not even pretending that they will use any tax take for these purposes this time round. It will be used for hiring cronies and shoring up their power base.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    If National don’t get rid of WFF then they might as well change to have a red logo – F-ing socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ed Snack (1,927 comments) says:

    I love Judith’s definition of reality, a few off the cuff comments about loss making properties and donations for “the rich” and it’s reality.

    Here’s reality about loss making properties, they make a cash loss almost always these days as depreciation is not claimable so the expenses are indeed cash expenses, and donations, sure, give away cash to groups defined as charities and that’s a tax dodge ? I mean, really ? Let’s say I donate $1,000, thus I save $300 or so in tax at a cost of a further $700, sounds like a real “dodge” to me. If the taxpayer is investing in a property for the capital gain then nominally that is already taxable; and running a property at a continued loss is an indicator to the IRD that capital gain is the intention.

    People on salaries (must be a good chunk of those above) have few avenues to “dodge” tax, investors have more and funneling as much income and expenditure through a limited company will lower the tax rate, but that is unaffected by Labour’s proposed tax as the company rate is unchanged.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. lazza (382 comments) says:

    Hey Slim Dave … good info but!

    How would the picture look if …

    You were to include ALL taxes (not just “income ones”) to include GST, other duties like RUC’s/property rates/council charges and ACC … and make that! total the numerator titled “Taxes” (above) divided by the denominator “Household Income” as a %

    A very different picture will emerge no doubt.

    BTW Steven Joyce’s riposte to the Labour budget (RadionNZ this am) was underwhelming “same ol same ol” … and very wrong/misleading.

    Labour’s budget is in fact NOT! a quote “tax and spend” kind of approach at all.

    Increased Govt expenditures are in fact eschewed in favour of debt reductions (on the face of it).

    SJ should bin his tired old notes and come up with something that is not just more irrelevant autopilot standard fare … election year “noise”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Harriet (5,131 comments) says:

    “….If National don’t get rid of WFF then they might as well change to have a red logo – F-ing socialists….”

    As DPF pointed out – the only wlefare is for very very few people @ $2500k py max!

    Foe everyone else it’s a tax break – not a ‘benefit’ – there is no fucken ‘benefit’ in recieving $0.00!

    It’s you Dumb Little Blue Smurfs from National who are the fucken socialists —-and insist that working parents don’t get tax breaks. Which most of you fucken are! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Ed Snack (1,705 comments) says:
    June 26th, 2014 at 9:35 am

    Well Ed, from where I sit is it all illusion. I may not be too wonderful with maths but I do know that not all households with an income of under $50,000 earn more from welfare, than they do in wages/salaries etc. There are many households in that range that get no welfare AT ALL, in fact the majority don’t get welfare, unless you want to call the entitlement to superannuation, welfare.

    So that is just one stat that gives the wrong illusion. The same with what Floyd pointed out.

    Tables like the one above are nothing but an illusion – reality is very different. Anyone can make such stats fit any argument they like. Reality is somewhere in between.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dime (10,109 comments) says:

    “”Dime – as blind as they come!

    Small and large businesses get tax breaks – so should working parents.”

    lmao not working people? just working parents?

    and a tax break for what? if youre getting back more than youre putting in, its not a tax break, its charity. state enforced charity.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Harriet (5,131 comments) says:

    “…..lmao not working people? just working parents?…”

    Why don’t you just get Key to give them to you Dime – get him to do the explaining – why abuse Conservatives for sticking up for families not having to pay taxes?

    Why are you being such a commie today Dime?

    “……and a tax break for what? if youre getting back more than youre putting in, its not a tax break, its charity. state enforced charity…..”

    As DPF said – there’s still gst.

    Get Key to get everyone to pay for their sexual healthcare – like we do with dental care – pay as you go.

    ‘Socialised’ a disease have you Dime? – get the taxpayer to pay for your treatment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dime (10,109 comments) says:

    “ou can push the 22% argument, but really that’s a debate over whether we should have a progressive tax system at all. As we have accepted the principle of progressive taxation (only ACT and Conservatives oppose it) the debate should be around what effect this tax hike could have on the economy.”

    its accepted because people are kept poor by governments. reduce poverty = less need for government.

    so the middle class just stay treading water forever, occasionally a lolly comes their way. it is way too hard to get ahead in this country and thats not the fault of people earning 150k a year +.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Floyd60 (92 comments) says:

    It is clear from Ed’s comment that we need a much fairer tax system. Unfortunately the legal avoidance lobby will prevent this from happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dime (10,109 comments) says:

    “Why are you being such a commie today Dime?”

    you want free money from the government. you arent concerned that people earning $1000 a week get welfare. that makes ME the communist????

    im sick to death of hearing the word “families”. like we should should all bow and scrape. maybe to make your argument even more compelling you should throw in the words “kids” and “mums”

    youre the socialist

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    I agree that the figures are pretty meaningless until you take in the amount of tax people pay with GST… the ‘minus 30%’ is very questionable …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Harriet (5,131 comments) says:

    “…..you want free money from the government. you arent concerned that people earning $1000 a week get welfare. that makes ME the communist???? ….”

    We’ve beeen over that Dime – the maximum they get is $50 wk – another 2-3 hours at work then makes them tax neutral!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. alloytoo (573 comments) says:

    “Fair” is a word that labour uses a lot, it’s absolutely clear that they don’t understand what it means, but perhaps it’s time to have a national conversation as to what is a “fair” tax regime, instead of leaving it as a political football and lolly scramble.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Families should not be receiving hand outs at all.

    If you can’t afford to have kids, don’t have them. If you have to have two of you working to pay your mortgage, either choose between your house or a family, and decide which is more important.

    Our political parties love the welfare system. They’ve got it down perfectly. Fine tuned it to the point that from the time of conception (Maternity Pay), to the time we die (Funeral Grants) we can bludge if we don’t want to make the effort ourselves.

    As parents we don’t have to be responsible because the gummit will pay if we don’t. As children we don’t have to care for our aging parents, cause gummit will do it, if we don’t. And we wonder why that then transfers to bad parenting and family values?

    Now we discuss tax – and we fight and scrap over who is paying too much, or too little – that’s a discussion none of us would have to have, if we were born as free people, and not born as children of the state for life.

    It’s nice to have a safety net, but ours has become a mattress.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Harriet (5,131 comments) says:

    “…..I agree that the figures are pretty meaningless until you take in the amount of tax people pay with GST… the ‘minus 30%’ is very questionable …”

    For very very few people they get about $2,500 py maximum! About $50[2-3 hrs] a week more from their employer ect would make it tax neutral.

    It’s not an issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Akld Commercial Lawyer (166 comments) says:

    So there we have it – the central plank to Labour’s economic policy going into the election is, once again, eat the rich.

    Like the other major policy announcements coming from it economics spokesman in the last 12 months, it seems to be less about economic fundamentals and more about posturing to what they think is the core of their electorate. According to their definition, anyone earning over $150k is one of them – to be targeted to pay for things (particularly it seems from Morning Report this morning – Health and Education).

    As a result, the policy plank is to start by an uplift in the top marginal income tax rate from 33c to 36c.

    Its just symbolism – and it won’t raise nearly enough to pay for the other parts of their policy that can be costed.

    The only reason why they seem to be able to claim an uplift in the tax take is that the rising tide of the economy simply takes more taxpayers into the “rich” camp. All the bumpf that follows about the rich also hiding stuff away in trusts to “avoid tax” is unproven (and probably unprovable) and would have a better home in the NZ Post Childrens’ Book Awards.

    Event the Herald worked out, in a heartbeat, that fiddling with the top marginal rate would provide an incentive to find more aggressive tax structures – starting with the mismatch between personal/trust rates and the corporate rate.

    You would have thought that a quick flick through the lessons of history would give the lie to this – both as sound economic management and as a saleable policy heading into an election.

    Next cab off the rank is more bumper sticker slogans about tackling tax avoidance by multinationals. The only bumper sticker relevant to this is “Yeah right”. There is no practical chance that we will achieve much here by being out of step with our major trading partners or other members of the OECD. Reform in this are will take time – and the numbers that Labour are citing are fantasyland stuff. This is just parish pump politics.

    Somewhere, buried in the fine print, is a recycling of the R & D tax credit rhetoric – but by this stage I had lost interest.

    And finally, we get more about the bottom line – being a capital gains tax. I am not dismissing the idea of some form of capital gains tax – but there is much work to be done to shape something that works and does not risk triggering a disinvestment in some of the major levers of the domestic economy. So, the prospect of a Labour-led patchwork coalition being able to tax its way not only into prosperity but also to a footing to pay for some of the election promises being made by itself and its would-be partners seems a bit of a stretch.

    And frankly, after the lies that underpin two other elements of their economic policy – who but the most ardent anti-capitalist is going to believe that eat the rich is the answer for an economy that is finally starting to feel the benefit of a limited recovery from the recession. We need an intelligent and hard-working opposition to provide the contestability that generates good, road-tested, economic policy. Hopefully, after the clear out that must come post-September, we will get one.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Harriet (5,131 comments) says:

    Judith (6,802 comments) says:
    June 26th, 2014 at 10:00 am

    “…Families should not be receiving hand outs at all….”

    It’s a tax break not a benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Gulag1917 (1,012 comments) says:

    We need a culture of non-statism where families reject state intervention.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. dime (10,109 comments) says:

    “We’ve beeen over that Dime – the maximum they get is $50 wk – another 2-3 hours at work then makes them tax neutral!”

    ah ok. so you just want to make it so certain people dont pay tax lol and youre gonna force em to work more?

    how bout this – i only gamble what i can afford to lose. maybe you should think about that approach with kids. only have what YOU can afford to pay for. without relying on your neighbours to fund their schools, healthcare etc

    oh but wait, ya probably pay a solid 3k in GST.. that should cover schooling for 3 months or so for a couple of your brats

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    another 2-3 hours at work then makes them tax neutral!

    That’s right…. rich pricks should work a bit longer so that the tax hikes don’t effect them so that ‘less rich pricks’ can get more welfare and a better work life balance…

    Socialists …. always expecting to get something for nothing by making other people work harder.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Harriet (4,360 comments) says:
    June 26th, 2014 at 10:02 am

    I understand that Harriet, but its still money that some have to pay that others don’t, because they’ve got a family. What about those that look after elderly parents, do they get a tax break?

    It’s the message those ‘tax breaks’ or welfare payments give, that worries me. I was bought up to believe that I was responsible for any life choices I made. If I decided to have children, then I needed to work out how I would be able to raise them. I was not taught to have the child, then worry about how I would pay for it. Or worse still have the child because if I couldn’t pay, the government would.

    It may seem like the best thing to do, to ensure that the children are cared for, but what it does is give people the idea that when they have a child, they are not 100% responsible for raising it. I think that filters down into the overall way people regard their role as a parent etc.

    There are other ways that we could assist parents, and those with family responsibilities, but paying them money (or tax breaks) is not an efficient way of doing that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Harriet (5,131 comments) says:

    “…..oh but wait, ya probably pay a solid 3k in GST.. that should cover schooling for 3 months or so for a couple of your brats…”

    If the National government wants to be involved in MY kids education Dime – it WILL fucken pay to be involved!

    Or they can fuck off.

    [but I live in Aus- and the youngest is at a private Christian school – subsidised by the government because they have to have government stuff installed into them]

    What did you think you were paying for when you voted to get national to educate other people’s kids? Commie!!!! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    “where’s GD today.”

    The obsessive Ugly Truth will have to find somewhere else to bore everyone stupid with his idiot conspiracy theories and drooling idiot Narsekissa will need to find somewhere else for his infantile cut and paste jokes.

    What a tragedy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. mikenmild (11,742 comments) says:

    Or we can insert jokes on random threads.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Ed Snack (1,927 comments) says:

    I’d just add to what Queen St Lawyer says about the “taxing multinationals”, that it’s a rather sick joke, or a policy by people who simply don’t understand. They won’t tax Google or Amazon, they’ll be taxing NZ residents who use those services, but that’s absolutely NOT how they are selling it. They want the mug punters to believe that labour will be taking money from “someone else” so they can look generous giving away. Sorry folks, but that someone else is you, as it always ultimately is.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. big bruv (14,156 comments) says:

    Judith is a perfect example of the vested interest.

    Like Dime I am sick of pretend capitalists who say they want government hand outs slashed, or eliminated only to then go on and explain why the hand out they receive from the tax payer (remember folks, the government has NO MONEY) should continue.

    Don’t have more fucking kids than you can afford and stop sending kids of average intelligence to university just so you can boast to your coffee set that “Sebastian is doing oh so well in his studies”. The world does not need any more drop kicks with Political Science degrees.

    Unless your kid is highly intelligent then tell the little prick to harden up and be a plumber, in the end he will thank you for it, and, he will earn a truck load more than he would by going to University.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. KiwiGreg (3,259 comments) says:

    “unless you want to call the entitlement to superannuation, welfare”

    Well on that logic there is no welfare, as it’s all entitlements. Of COURSE superannuation is welfare.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    The sleeze are appeasing unions with a tax of envy on successful and productive members of society. If this is the game they want to play they sure as hell will have a battle.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    big bruv: With that attitude you will never get an invite to the rectum reamers’ rainbow room by Labour’s fairies. You are right on the money.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RRM (10,020 comments) says:

    Dear Messrs Cunliffe / Norman;

    Please find enclosed, the shirt off my back.

    You’re welcome!

    Regards,
    RRM

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    Two points about this table-

    1) $27 billion is gross tax paid.

    Of course this isn’t right either because when people or organisations are part of the govt (like parliament for example) much of that tax comes from govt coffers in the first place. If you take out this recirculated money then what really is the actual real tax collected? Doing this calculation would further support the view that socialist economies are really just giant ponzi schemes.

    2) Mr Farrar says “I’d be keen to see a fuller dataset that includes indirect taxes (such as GST)”

    So would I as govt spending is around $80 billion, so where is the other $53 billion and who pays that?

    Socialism is just a smoke and mirrors act carried out by deceitful cynical politicians and bureaucrats.

    Once again, there’s no answer to this question that doesn’t support the theory that socialism is just a giant ponzi scheme and one day the illusion will end with great pain felt by everyone sucked in by it.

    Wittering away over the collection of small percentages of tax is just futile. The whole system is a complete disaster.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    In other news. Turkey’s have cancelled Christmas claiming that it’s only the rich who could afford them anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    RRM

    Please find enclosed, the shirt off my back.

    It’s not enough. You are now required to spend your money on a variety of different size shirts for other people as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    Oh, and I forgot to add-

    That socialism is just a giant ponzi scheme is why the real men who founded the National Party would be aghast and betrayed at how willingly girly men like Bill English and John Key embrace that evil.

    Sid Holland and the other founders of National knew that socialism was a fraud, and they said this when they produced the founding principles of the party-

    “To promote good citizenship and self-reliance; to combat communism and socialism; to maintain freedom of contract; to encourage private enterprise; to safeguard individual rights and the privilege of ownership; to oppose interference by the State in business, and State control of industry”.

    It was all about small government then. Today, thanks to the abject surrender of weak willed charlatans who have completely failed to uphold their party principles, we have huge govt and its a disaster.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. stigie (1,318 comments) says:

    You know, we would be that much better off if Reddy ran the country by the sounds of it !~

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    You wouldn’t be. You’d be doing 25 to life for indiscriminate trolling.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. lazza (382 comments) says:

    Appropro of SFA … General debate topic maybe? re opiinonated blogs.

    If, for your (KIwi) blog contributions, you crave a “highlight” (a moderators “fave”) or lots of green ticks then just submit a one-sided myopic peon of right wing psycho-babble … whatever the merits of any counter-arguments.

    Go on! try it (maybe use the opposite like a more leftish wing trope) … and see the result.

    And my point is … blogs IMHO should NOTt have any “default” standpoint of any stripe, the “Tick Trolls” I assume? are totally independent of the moderation function? …Dunno and Who or why the highlights. An explanation of the “rools” on this would be appreciated.

    Sorry this is out of place … or if the deal has already been explained.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. lastmanstanding (1,302 comments) says:

    So the numbers prove there is already a massive redistribution of income.

    Clearly the Socialist Party has never heard of the Laffer Curve.

    Oh well tax practitioners can breathe a sigh of fresh air if the Socialist Party get to from the next Gumint. Plenty of work finding new ways to ensure their clients legally avoid not only the top tax rate but tax full stop.

    You see what the Socialists don’t tell you is the numbers who don’t pay any tax except GST yet enjoy a very large income. Go talk to any of the top tax practitioners and they will laugh and tell you of their clients who take the view the Gumint don’t deserve any income tax. Up until GST which is more difficult to avoid these people paid no tax at all on substantial incomes.

    Any Gumint with a brain would do what Roger Douglas wanted to do in 1988 until Langes brain fade and that is a low flat rate tax. Reason. If you pitch its right the really rich will pay up rather than utilizing the services of a tax practitioner and the Gumint will actually get more gross tax receipts to redistribute to their hearts content.

    But of course Gumints wont do that. Those of the Right know it will work but are fearful of the backlash caused by those of the Left who simply want to tax and waste ( they don’t spend wisely never have never will)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    Tax doesn’t really take money out of the economy, it’s just spent by someone else. A dollar paid in tax isn’t destroyed, it’s just moved.

    Arguably a redistributed dollar is more likely to be spent than saved so it’s more valuable in macro terms….

    Can the better off rearrange their tax affairs to minimise income like Judith suggested ? Not as crudely as she suggests, but yes it can be done. Frankly anyone not doing so it stupid. (I’ve just got my tax statements for the year and am in a very good mood)

    Would a rise from 33% to 36% on over $150k make a vast difference? Not really it’s symbolic. On 200k a year, it’s only an extra $100 a month.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. dime (10,109 comments) says:

    “You wouldn’t be. You’d be doing 25 to life for indiscriminate trolling.” lmao

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    http://www.wheresmytaxes.co.nz/?income=true

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Fentex (1,038 comments) says:

    They generate 42% of taxable income, pay 50% of gross income tax and 73% of net income tax.

    If you don’t include GST you’re not being honest when talking about, and comparing, peoples tax contributions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Manolo (14,065 comments) says:

    Sir Winston Churchill’s words are very appropriate: “Never was so much owed by so many to so few…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    Alan, that is a very interesting link. Thank you for that.

    I see that IRD collections have gone up 10% over last year.

    As for my question who pays the other $53 billion?

    Clearly it can’t be anyone else except the working stiff NZer.

    And he pays practically all of that $53 billion except for that amount that is borrowed. Currently we’re about $60 billion in overdraft and paying huge interest on that as well.

    All just a disgusting ponzi scheme that if it was subject to the laws that commercial entities are would see most politicians and bureaucrats behind it jailed.

    Vote buying and vote auctioning is the root of the problem. If we educated our children to the truth that the govt actually has no money, instead of inculcating in them a destructive faith in socialism, it would help a lot.

    Fixing education is another thing the Nats won’t do.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    In broad terms the other 53bn comes from GST, company taxes and excise duties.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    Of course, but who do you think pays that? Little green men from outer space? All of those kind of collections are part of the fraud in that they project the illusion that someone else is paying the tax, but in fact there’s no one else. The buck starts and stops with the working stiff. The producer.

    Take company tax for example. Any company making a product sells that product with company tax and other regulatory costs as a price component. So who in the end pays the tax? Not the company. The working stiff who buys the product.

    Its why I say that a poll tax is the best possible taxation option. A single cheque payable annually that is calculated by taking the cost of running the country divided by the number of taxpayers. (real taxpayers, the producers)

    Its the only way to keep rogue vote buying politicians in check, and to also stop gullible uninformed citizens falling for the scam of vote auctioning.

    A double edged sword that would cut the heart out of socialism and restore sanity to our govt.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Ed Snack (1,927 comments) says:

    All tax income that is redistributed is done so with a loss on the way through, with estimates of that loss varying. So arguing that a tax dollar is not lost is wrong, some of it is wasted.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    “So arguing that a tax dollar is not lost is wrong, some of it is wasted.”

    Yep, socialism is all about churning, and there’s a massive cost to that not only in cash terms but also in the loss of productivity as potentially wealth creating energy is transferred to the unproductive activities that churning necessitates.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. mikenmild (11,742 comments) says:

    Poll tax, eh? Would you tie that to the right to vote?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Redbaiter (9,609 comments) says:

    Be honest, like all hard leftists, you just want non producers voting themselves unlimited access to the money earned by others.

    Theft disguised as altruism.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    @Alan: “Tax doesn’t really take money out of the economy, it’s just spent by someone else. A dollar paid in tax isn’t destroyed, it’s just moved.”

    Except you are not accounting for the efficiency of the spent dollar. When government spends a dollar instead of the worker spending it, its relative efficiency is about 50% of its value.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Paryphanta (9 comments) says:

    GST is proportional but there is no GST on residential rent (or mortgage interest). Lower income households tend to pay a higher proportion of their income on rent so I would think that they actually pay less GST relative to income. I concede that there is no GST paid if a household saves rather than spends, but there is GST paid on income that is from capital gains that are not taxed – so the end result is not clear. Overall, I think GST is probably proportional rather than regressive.

    Another aspect to remember is that the maximum tax rate for investment funds that are PIEs is 28% and this will become increasingly important as KiwiSaver balances grow. This household income data probably excludes PIE income and KiwiSaver income.

    What I find interesting is the significant proportion of households with taxable income over $150,000 – 14.7%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    Where did this $53 Billion come from in previous posts? I see 55?

    The bloody useless IRD graphic switches units from totals to per capita – stupid.

    Anyway, if I’ve done my sums correctly income tax is about a 1/3rd of all tax, GST about 30% and companies pay about 13%.
    The rest is in odds and sods like ACC, Road user charges etc.

    As stated in the original post the totals are exclusive GST – it is a given that those of greater income will spend more even if they save more but working out how the proportions change is difficult. We can make reasonable assumptions. We have plenty of none GST liable big spending like rents and mortgage interest. We can also assume greater income families spend more but less of their disposable income on a %age basis. So expect the $150K households to generate less than 70 odd %percent of the total net tax take but it’s still likely to be high and I would be surprised it would be less than 60%.

    Of course, we have other contributions such as private schooling and private health and, yes, these are contributions as they take costs out of the tax paid systems.

    Perhaps these people earning more money aren’t bastards after all.

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