Read the answer fully - re conversion and other aspects.
The effect of the $150,000 estate duty wold mean that the farm would be sold to pay the tax and the two farming families would effectively be forced off the land.
They would also get $183,000 to play with, that they could use to buy another farm, or as security in their existing farm for a bank loan. My heart is not exactly bleeding for their poor miserable fortunes. Only the sentimental attachment to the complete ownership of their farm is actually compromised by the death tax. If there was quite literally no cash whatsoever in the estate to pay the tax off outright, that suggests that the old farmer was reinvesting everything so that he/she could acquire more land, and was thus growing his/her capital without any taxation at all, for years. No wonder most farms are constantly being bought up by bigger and bigger concerns these days, if that kind of wealth concentration is allowed in rural economics.
ETA: removed sexist language.
How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?
None. If the light bulb needs to be changed, the market will take care of it.
For those whom favour estate duty - then bring it back an estate Duty at 45% over the value of an estate of $450,000.
Then In the interest of being fair to everyone it should apply to everything the family home just as it applies to the family farm.
Makes sense to me. Inheritance would seem to be the main source of social division, the world over. There will still be upbringing, which is a form of inheritance, but I think public education has done a lot to level that playing field.
You Sir have a tax addiction.
Means testing is like user pays. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Guarantee a decent minimum to everybody, including the CEO of Telecom, and incentivise people to supplement that. Getting people to save and then take away what they would have got if they hadn't is just wrong.
I'll disagree. You are guaranteeing a decent minimum to everyone by making super contributions compulsory under Kiwisaver - you're just changing the mechanism. Universal super then becomes a topup to reach that decent minimum from general taxation - for that to work you have to "test" what you need to make it up by. At the very least, base it only on their Kiwisaver account and topping up that to meet a reasonable decent minimum.
We can't afford to keep loading a universal decent payment on the general taxation of future generations. Numbers simply don't work. I'd argue means-testing in itself is far from dumb (I'd actually say it's the reverse of user-pays personally) but the awfully strict and nasty implementations of it in the past have been.
Yes, I can't get past the fact that I paid a shitload more tax in Australia, lived a much richer life, in a country with much more developed infrastructure, and have a big sack of cash waiting for me there, all because of the superior way those Ozzies manage money - or perhaps the superior way they deal with neoliberals. Certainly I was a bit of a neoliberal when I first went there, and I experienced what a mobilized working class can actually achieve. They just took way less shit from the likes of me, and I developed an abiding respect for their national character because of it.
ETA: And that was ALL under the Howard government!
grits teeth more in frustration than anger
Why, you sir, should just be thankful
that you are endentured...
<aside> has anyone else noticed that National Radio seems to have been replaced by The Breeze this afternoon? </aside>
From my experience during the 9 years of Labour the union movement and particularly the CTU nutured the working class.
So somebody who has poor parents, works for years and earns a million dollars will pay tax on that, maybe $330k.
Someone sensible enough to choose rich parents who leave them a house or farm worth a million dollars pays *no* tax.
That's a bit of a silly comparison. In your second example, the rich parent's assets have already been taxed once - via income tax or profit in their business. If they haven't, it's not the fault of a gift or duty tax or the lack of.
Sure, if you want to tax wealth by hitting it again, go ahead, but you can't claim it's *no* tax.
Means testing is like user pays. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Guarantee a decent minimum to everybody, including the CEO of Telecom, and incentivise people to supplement that. Getting people to save and then take away what they would have got if they hadn’t is just wrong.
It's really a question of whether we consider superannuation to be Universal Basic Income, or a welfare payment for those in need. I think I could be happy with the former, but it should apply to people under 65 as well.
I think I could be happy with the former, but it should apply to people under 65 as well.
Wasn't that Social Credit's main idea? It seems like a much simpler idea than welfare, I must say. Effectively it should be tax neutral on the current system, since employed people would be paying for it for themselves, and it would obviously need a corresponding tax hike. But it would take away the stigma of welfare and the massive marginal taxing that goes on with it that actively discourages incremental movements out of unemployment.
Nattering Nabobs of Negativity, negated...
Our friends across the Tasman also worry about the distribution of money across society...
Here's a great take on it from Geoff Lemon, here's a taster...
And the casual punters who might not drop 50 bucks in the pokies anymore might drop it on a round of good Scotch for their mates instead. They might drop it on some oysters. They might get themselves a lap dance, or a couple of Hoyts Gold Class tickets, or a hilarious novelty windscreen sticker. (“2 Low 4 Fat Hoes”, said a ripper I saw recently on a lowered station wagon in Geelong. That guy gets wicked gash.) They might end up with a few extra grand and buy themselves a jetski. Maybe the jetski dealership supports the local junior sports club instead. Money doesn’t vanish.
here he is in full flight at the Nimbin Poetry World Cup 2009 (dodgy phone capture)...
...how many dudes d'ya know flow like that?
Bart, you misrepresent superannuation grossly. There was never a contract to put tax money aside in the 70s and 80s to fund superannuation later. Didn't happen.
It was intended as a pay as you go scheme, not a pay now for later scheme.
But also taxpayers in the 70s, 80s and early 90s not only failed to pay enough tax to invest some to fund their future superannuation, they also voted for large govt deficits. A govt deficit is just a way of enjoying govt spending money now, but deferring the tax payments until many years later. We still haven't paid off your deficits. I don't want to dismantle superannuation, but financially your generation did indeed screw over mine.
I don't want to dismantle superannuation, but financially your generation did indeed screw over mine.
Icehawk, Bart is younger than you are.
My apologies fo thinking you were a grumpy old man.
But serously, you are totally dead wrong about how National Super was introduced. It was explicitly NOT the contract you say it was.
Labour did set up exactly what you suggest, a tax and invest scheme to tax now to cover superannuation later. It lasted only 37 weeks before the voters turfed them and it for Muldoon, who replaced it with National Super which had not investment of your tax money now to pay the future super.
Damn, sorry about the typos, this ipad keyboard kind sucks for typing in bed.
There was never a contract to put tax money aside
That was the earlier arrangement with social security, However there's more than one type of trade off. You may recall a top tax rate of 66% under Muldoon.
...how many dudes d'ya know flow like that?
Well, there's ..... you
Although, today more like an Iceflow,
Don't cha know,
Erm ... Bro.
music for old people...
Well, there's ..... you
Aw, shucks Steve, but...
Although, today more like an Iceflow
by my sainted and stranded
grandmother that's floe...
flows have eddies
and the Turtles did, too
keep it warm :- )
Welcome to the Irony Bar...
The Mrs 'n' I were only this morning discussing the difference between an Ass and a Mule so I had to check. A Mule is the offspring of a Male Donkey, an Ass, and a female Horse and I wondered about the American term Ass with reference to the British Arse and a Jonkey.
It's getting late,
The bars are closed,
I'll get my pallow,
It's time I dozed.
What, no Dunnekey…
the difference between an Ass and a Mule
Woe is the man who mistakes buttocks for slippers…
Pleasant dreams with the Pallow©
better those overstuffed Cabbage Patch Kids©
than a Pet Rock©!
What, no Dunnekey…
That Keynesian Key should go the way of the Dinosaur after what he and his ilk have done to the Global Economy and that Perissodactyla Dunn, that Odd-toed ungulate, should be a little horse and gagging on all that Brontosaurial Bumfluff.
I suppose you could use Brontosaurial Bumfluff for Pallows©, great export opportunity there.
overstuffed Cabbage Patch Kids©
Brownlee and Bennet?
Oops, now I will get a bollocking from those without...