Labour, 1999. As you note.

But I?d rather see it as another tool in the box, with a corresponding drop in something else, than an increase in the?

http://nzier.org.nz/publications/getting-real-on-a-tax-free-threshold-nzier-insight-24

And good to note that my first comment would prove me wrong. Although to play the pedant, I don't know that they won because they promised a high marginal?

As always with tax, if you are paying a lot of it you are clearly earning lots of money. I will gladly pay fifteen percent of any money I earn by doing absolutely nothing?

It was

Are you sure you are in favour of proportional taxation? I'm asking because currently we have teachers in the same bracket as Telecom's CEO. That doesn't sound right to me.

Everybody?

Oh, you don't mean they should get a pay rise?

Maybe not then.

Now that you mention it, to me too.

And Prostetnic Vogon Joyce has just announced several Holiday Highway?s worth of pet projects. On top of the Holiday Highway itself. Anyone notice the 4.5:1 imbalance in favour of truck-only lanes, oops sorry, motorways? And the public?

Hate?

Ahh, nothing like a Hitchikers reference to make me smile on a Friday morn...

That?s?

Of course it bloody was, and if I hear another journalist say "Labour refuses to talk publicly" I'll bloody bottle someone. What Labour is actually doing is refusing to answer?

So, what, as soon as someone hits some magic ?shitloads of money? threshold proportional taxation no longer applies to them? ?The rich are different from you and me?, indeed.

Uh yeah, that?s *exactly* what proportional taxation is. Ditto Danielle, proportional tax applies at all levels of income, even ?shitloads?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_tax

I think what you?re confusing it with is Progressive tax. The opposite of which is regressive tax (i.e. a poll tax).

And yes, that?s what?

Quite – but I think the real risk is that Labour may forget Helen's favourite mantra: Under promise and over-deliver. What's smart politics/strategy this week, could turn turtle very?

The top tax rate came in at $70,000. Maximum base salary for a teacher, even today, is $68,980. Allowances add an average $5,600 to this, but 97% of teachers (being in salary group 4 or below)?

There are teachers in the top tax bracket. Like I said.

A tiny minority of teachers paid top rate tax under the last Labour?

Oh! I thought it was just me who had that special power. Things may have changed.

Use it wisely :-)

They see Frog and Toad rollin', they hatin'.

Too late.

Maybe we should aim?

Yeah, but most jobs suck. Otherwise they wouldn't be jobs. People would do them for fun.

Because in the private sector they would earn more? I mean, we have a market oriented state sector. If you want to fix that, making the government into a?

Amusingly, one of the reasons that Dubbyah got the first Presidential pay increase since Nixon took office (Clinton signed the law but wasn't allowed to benefit from it, since?

http://www.ird.govt.nz/technical-tax/legislation/2005/2005-120/leg-2005-120-inc-tax-2005-06.html

bog-standard derailing

And capping maximum salaries to that of the PM? You wanna see the people already paying by far the lion's share of the tax all fuck off overseas??

Yes.

It's how you spend it, is where the moral issues lay.

After said Chairman made absolute piles as a trader, IIRC.

If one looks at the Cabinet Secretaries in the US, they are rarely in need of their official salary. Do we really?

They're still paid < USD200k, though. And their pay is a cap on the salaries of the real civil servants – four-star military officers and their civilian equivalents cannot be paid more than a cabinet secretary.

I'd prefer they stayed for the right reasons – not because we've arranged things so it's too easy for them to rip off others and not pull their weight.

Hell, we got Exile on Main Street out of it.

I chose to confuse it with progressive tax to put a charitable spin on what you said. Because ?I?m not against proportional taxation? means you?re not against the thing that even the ACT party isn?t against. And personally I don?t?

Assuming that were to happen, and I think to a great extent it wouldn?t, what do you think would happen next?

Would Telecom operate without a CEO? If the remaining capitalists?

I don't, but then all I have to do is look at his poster on my wall, so.

This does not appear nutty to me. Doesn't matter what line of work you are in really – whatever you earn, there is a scale of income tax applied progressively increasing as your income gets?

Really, would they? Surely someone, somewhere has some data from a country where?

How does that work, exactly?

Suppose I have a lot of assets, and a lot of income, and I decide to leave in disgust.

We don?t have a wealth tax, unless you?

I questioned the assumption that these are the wealthy $150k+ taxpayers. The treasury has a page which shows totals of taxable income in bands.

I've crunched that into a spreadsheet which I've shared through Google Docs. (I would have attached it, but hey..)?

"To place the claims of welfare before those of wealth". Those were the days, huh?

You may be thinking about the punitive tax rates of the 60s and 70s (99% rate bands, from memory) but Sweden is now only slightly out of step with the average OECD in tax to GDP terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-%2875-05%29.JPG). The reason it is higher?

Because they'd have to elbow their way through all the drunk English retired taxi drivers?

There only change would be that a different bunch of "rich pricks" would be taking crap about not paying enough tax (to support all the poor teachers, as it appears in this thread!).?

uh, the IRD work very hard to apply tax rates in the least-arbitrary fashion possible. If you want someone to take the blame for arbitrary, you want to be pointing your?

Neither. The teacher can afford to pay the taxes levied from her, and should. The CEO of Telecom can afford to pay a lot more taxes than he does,?

Good luck disabusing people of that notion.

No, but if the salary was capped at $361,000 or whatever arbitrary figure we decide is 'enough', they might be quite a shitty CEO.

The idea that there is someone to replace everyone ignores the fact that some people actually create jobs and draw?

And this justifies taxing them less than the entreprenurs?

I believe that if an individual pays anything like $561,000 in tax that he (or she) have contributed enormously.

I see no reason to gouge them for more just because of your beliefs,

You, however, are more than welcome?

I was working to list the various failures of Telecom management – but hey, I don't need to – it's all on their own website: http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,8748,200633-1548,00.html

First Media, Ferrit, AAPT, CDMA, Yahoo!Xtra, Yellow Pages....

No-one ever said that all highly paid execs were actually worth the money they are paid!

I don't begrudge them their income though – if they can convince some foolish company to pay them "shitloads" then why not?

So I?m scratching here. What exactly is the effect of tax refugees fleeing on our tax base?

Let me help you find that itch ? you?re assuming that the business isn?t portable, because it is either bricks and mortar and must be sold, or services New Zealanders. The businesses we?

Exactly – imagine how bad they'd be if they only got paid 1/20th of what they get now....

Exactly ? imagine how bad they?d be if they only got paid 1/20th of what they get now?.

I don't buy that it would have any (negative) impact at all. Perhaps if?

How sweet.

You'd be surpised how many NZers don't know what Richardson and Shipley did?

It's only 'more signifcant' if you have no interest in economic policy (or in how the other policies will be paid for).

I suggest you google "CEO compensation correlation". You might be surprised, or not, to learn that there appears to be no correlation or possibly an inverse one. So?

Yes, in that way they're actually like government.

My personal experience has always been that the bigger an organization gets, the generally less empowered and happy the employees feel, and the greater?

Commentators are, and also most people seem to have a good idea about what it is, and are forming?

Yup, and if you think our future prosperity lies in shipping milk powder overseas, then there's another thing we'll have to?

As Ernesto Rossi once said, if a fascist says that it's raining and it is actually raining, then the fascist is right.

But hey, look, knock yourself out, agreeing with Roger?

for once I think the Herald editorial and cartoonist nails my perspective!

Yeah, that was over-simplistic of me, I simply meant that it certainly ain't being dictated by Labour, whose fricken policy it is. And knowing the media fairly well, they'll be reluctant to re-run the?

Which N.Z business people in particular do you fear would leave and how would they do it ?

I guess I'm with the higher taxers. I can't understand your proposition. The facts don't reflect your predictions. I can't begin to understand the defence of tax laws made by strange?

When we have high quality public?

Taxable income Tax on this income
0 ? $6,000 Nil
$6,001 ? $37,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000
$37,001 ? $80,000 $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001 ??

Speaking of Australia, the logic is quite simple really – the prevailing orthodoxy thinks Kath & Kim is a?

We were all lined up at the leaving gates, we were, weeping and wailing and begging them to stay.

Yes, they can, if they want to. There are plenty of countries with less tax, and a number of my friends have gone to live and work in them. You can?t just point to a country that has?

Yes please. I'd welcome lower corporate taxes – for exporters – in exchange for a CGT and more progressive personal rates with a decent universal minimum income.

Also strong investment for our future in things like affordable broadband, high-value sustainable businesses and?

Really? You do realise that only 1 in 50 of New Zealanders are reliable Act-voting libertarians. Sure you're not hanging out with an unrepresentative sample?

Yes, I remember I had brought a crate of tomatoes. You know, for comfort.

They instead seem to think we are going to catch up with Australia by doing the opposite?

You know, they had mineral wealth and we hadn't twenty years ago as well, and the gap between the two countries has ballooned?

Anyway, right now, Wikipedia tells me that mining is 5.6% of Australian GDP, and about 35% of exports. cite. It's not?

As the Bearer of a Uterus, may I just?

quite

– Broken Hill (mining national parks)
– Hollywood (the Hobbit Wars and the Copyright Wars, and of course the ??

You know, you can tax exports extra. Works the same as an import tax, promoting local businesses who serve local needs, only without driving up local prices or encouraging inefficiencies, all while ensuring any externalised costs of our export industries are recoverable.?

I'm not convinced they would. Investment bankers will still be paid way more than teachers unless we magically de-couple NZ from the global economy.

I believe the CGT and child-centred social policy are both significant initiatives but one does not seem to imply the other?

Similar political challenge to CGT – the benefits happen a long time after the cost, to different governments.

Selling broadly the long-term vision is crucial to keep support going (rather than have the next lot dismantle it like the current vandals are doing with KiwiSaver). Thank goodness?

And the private sector must be compelled to do their share, given the failure of waiting for voluntary efforts to improve their relative contribution compared with most other developed nations. Time for corporate bludging off the state to stop.

We already have way too many of those as a proportion of our total economy. What problem are you solving?

And this is a bad thing that needs to be changed?

For us 98% non-libertarians, yes.

I like to read this website because

1) Russell is a rare talent in this country. I?

Let?s take a look at a comment I posted earlier:

Let?s think about that. Let?s say the teacher is earning $80k ? so for the last $10k of their income they are paying the same tax rate that the CEO of Telecom is paying on the (roughly) $1.7mil?

I think the real reason I come to PAS is to enter into debate on such matters arising. I am hugely disappointed when the debate is reduced to sniping between those with opposing views (and yes, I get sucked into this as well).

I am?

They could work for free and still owe us money.

These people can't be living in the same country in?

Super Special Needs Scotsman Paul Reynolds gets to live fiscal life like a king.Taxing him more aggressively will not change his lifestyle one bit unless he is basically financially illiterate.The tax take of?

I can't help thinking if we met we probably would have comment agreements on most things that bring value to our lives.

It's just these economics are doing my head in.:)

Sure you?

Only if you conflate value with money.

Teachers do important work too, but they aren't holding anywhere near as much responsibility or liability

Just huge influences over your childs development, nothing special.

If you think money doesn't have value, why worry about it?

Essentially the problem is that the direct value of people like investment bankers is easily calculated, indeed they structure their lives to make it so. They sell their service to some organization?

If you regard value as what can be calculated in monetary terms, yes.

what they do sells itself for big bucks

verily, the sound of one hand clapping

typically an auctioning process takes place there

Yank and rank its called. It was a big part of Enrons personnell policy and is used
to determine how far you will go with an organisation, because if you get yanked there's no salary to discuss.

Just take health. Surely a good, well-funded education system and the stability it will bring to its participants will have obvious effects on the blow outs of domestic budget we see each year on a variety of health?

It's a little difficult to tell from your spreadsheet and post, but I think you've overstated that. People earning a million dollars a year also earn (and pay tax) in the blue, green, and?

So I'm a bit confused now...you seem to be saying that it?

Just wanted to clear a minor detail up – it was not me who suggested that high earners would leave if top tax rates went up. What?

I'm saying the level of personal tax paid is more proportionate to income and asset ownership levels than is often presented. The wealthiest New Zealanders are?

Which is what really gets my goat about the resurgence of entitled libertarian whinging of late. Had their chance from 1984 until 1999 (and beyond, some might argue) and it's all too clear who benefitted and where?

oh really

Randians have been doing that for some time. Some better than others.

That's from Keith's post about the subject last year. Graphs currently broken but his answer to the lines you quoted still stands:

No,?

I expect I need some of that advice. I can't talk to anyone else's reasons for being in this position, but I've been in?

When I was married with two children and studying. Our family had a total income of about 25k before tax. And we?

No, I have occasionally struggled, usually trying to work out how the hell to pay my next tax bill, since the payment on contracts can be very delayed. But on the whole, I seldom spend time worrying?

Isn't that a key sign of well-offness? Not having to think about it. The difference in my mental outlook from 'oh my god, if we spend that $20 the mortgage payment will bounce' to 'huh, does the mortgage payment come out this?

Yes, but I don't think it's a key sign of richness. This is the odd similarity about the poor and rich. The middle class is actually quite different in this dimension, I think.

And fucking how.

Actually, I should be more careful. There surely are middle class people who budget hard, this is most likely the springboard from whence mobility to enormous wealth comes. And there are some who are so disinterested in money?

The basic training of the New Zealand middle class is to be happy as long as you can pay the bills and not have to worry about getting the occasional nice thing, rather?

Interestingly, it's been my wife's greatest worry despite making a lot more money the irregular way.

The side of my generalization I'm least sure of is the part about the money worries of the very rich. The theory is pretty simple?

I for one would welcome that type of problem :)

I watched a very interesting?

Depending on the severity, so would I. If someone said to me that the cost of more money will be lifelong severe depression, I would think twice. In fact, that's precisely the choice I'm facing right now. It's been very?

Like I've said, one line of code..

What's it called? Are these kids old money types, new money or both?

And, then, of course, there are all the people who technically?

I'm now imagining the reality show version of a Whit Stillman film.

Barcelona or the Bag

too kind (and yes, you can read that both ways)

Metropolitangst
The Last Days of Compact Discs, Oh!

Damn, I wish he'd made more than three films. :)

It's called "Born Rich", and was directed and filmed by Jamie Johnson, one of the heirs to the Johnson & Johnson fortune. The people interviewed were a mix of old and new money – I remember a European?

Labour hopes to swing public opinion behind its capital gains tax plan by including an exemption for hundreds of thousands of tradespeople and small owner-operated businesses.

And it is understood there will be a five-year moratorium on the?

I'm one of those awful right-wingers who doesn't automatically regard a capital gains tax as the work of the Evil One. But, damn, I really hope the actual policy isn't going to live down to my expectations that it's going to be so full?

1. It only counts income tax. Not GST, excise or other taxes. Such a table would look different if it were about all tax paid. It seems odd to omit those other taxes, since the benefits alluded to are not paid solely out of?

You also don't see any of that in the law. And this is coming from somebody who would like our CGT to be a lot more aggressive than what Labour is proposing.

Once again: not on the planet I live on. Seriously, the only way a household on a 100k income struggles is if they don?t budget effectively. And if they don?t even bother to?

The former, in my case, I think. For the latter, I don't think owning a slightly-too-small property in a low income suburb is "inflated". It was well within?

It was within my mother's means only because in the 70s the govt offered 3% mortgages...

Yes, that would be me. Off the top of my head I'd cut the health insurance, seeing as?

I don?t think owning a slightly-too-small property in a low income suburb is ?inflated?. It was well within the means of even poor people of my parents generation.

Two things have happened. First, there?s more than 30% more people here than when I was born (1970). A house of the?

Just to clear a few things up, are the cars merely for getting from A to B (where a 4-cylinder motor would suffice), or do?

Off the top of my head I?d cut the health insurance, seeing as the state provides that. OK – you just shaved $1,800 off my expenses.

I?d also ask myself if I really need an accountant. Yes I do?

Not in my personal experience at all, actually- mind you, this was in the late 1980s/1990s

My partner and I are both self-employed and guess what ? we do our own accounting. We had to learn, so we learned.?

Where? And aren't you conflating individual with household income in any case?

I honestly think that if you?re self-employed, that is a bad position to be in. Apart from saving the fees, you can?t evaluate whether your accountant is any good. You?re in business now, and that means you really need to know this?

I do have an amazing house and like I?