@BenWilson - I'm still laughing.
Shhhh....don't tell everyone about the best little secret of the South Pacific!
You are right - Savai'i is a little more pristine than Upolu generally, although if you do get out to the eastern end of Upolu (even inland - like Richardson Rd/Le Mafa Pass Rd) and out west (Apolima-Uta) it is pretty awesome.
Did you get to try any Koko Samoa? I am making chocolate in NZ from Samoan Trinitario cocoa beans if you'd like to try some.
Well that must be heartbreaking - until I saw your pictures it seemed more like a dollars and cents exercise, when you see the mature fruit trees, hedging, tree house, proximity to the river, character bungalow, etc you realise what a loss it is - you had found a lovely environment for Bob to grow up in, I hope you can salvage some of it by relocating the house.
So help me understand...your gorgeous looking property is in the red zone and as such you will have to vacate at some point in the future? Or are you allowed to make repairs and stay on - no doubt without any insurer wanting to touch you?
I think the best system I've encountered is to force people to save. So I advocate compulsory superannuation at the very least, and I think other schemes could be easily devised.
This is an interesting one - I'm not all that familiar with the Australian system, however how does it work out if you have someone on a low income putting 9% of their salary into compulsory super vs someone on a high income putting 9% of their much higher income into compulsory super? At retirement age the higher income earner is going to have a way larger stockpile of savings and I would assume a much higher income in retirement? Or does the government top the lower retirement income up?
There's something nice and egalitarian about the current NZ system with everyone getting the same level of base superannuation, kind of like a pat on the back for doing your bit and paying your taxes during your working life. But then - if the country can't afford it, somethings gotta give.
You need to shop around with your childcare. I pay about a third of that for two full days a week.
Kyle - like I said in my response - we did shop around in our larger neighbourhood and while there was a small variance they were all roughly the same. And realistically you can only commute the kids so far. In the end we managed to get into the nicest place I could imagine being for a year or two before you head off to school and are very happy with the arrangement. Like I have repeated - I'm not actually complaining, looks like nearly everyone missed that bit, I must have not done a good job trying to get my point across.
It seems to me more like he's complaining about being equated with considerable wealth on account of income, without actually having a lifestyle that looks or feels like considerable wealth at all.
Ben, you had me at It.
Yep, you're one the money - except for the complaining bit, I was actually just trying to make a point. In fact I think you have a far better idea of what I was on about than I do. Whatever it was.
My only real concern for my personal future is not so much anything related to taxation - I've paid much higher rates in the past - it's more that I will lose my ability to earn a reasonable living as IT guys become redundant as Cloud Computing takes hold. But I am hopeful there will always be some sort of work for clapped out old IT guys that don't like working more than 30 hours/week.
For one thing, the biggest benefit going is national super
Right - let's do away with it then!
Do Australia have an equivalent to national super? Or do they just have a compulsory retirement savings scheme?
I have friends who raise two kids with expensive dietary issues on a gross income about 2/3 of ours, and I know they struggle
2/3 of $140k is $92,400. You've just about agreed with my argument there - which is (and not many people seem to read this part), that a family with an income of $100k is not as well off as some would think. I'm not saying it is impossible to get by - just that it is not as easy as some might think. Danielle may disagree with that, however with only one child and working from home it might make things different for her. For the first 3+ years of our two kids we had only one income and a mother at home, somehow that seemed easier than two incomes and kids in daycare.
It seems your calculations on potentially having kids in the future do not allow for any change in your income - you may well find that for 2-3 years you are down to half your current income, and you may well find it isn't as easy as you think. But don't let that stop you giving it a shot - having kids is the best thing we ever did.
So I couldn’t possibly whine about increased taxes in the higher bracket: I would welcome them.
Good thing I'm not whining about increased taxes in the higher bracket then!
So....that graph by DPF...aside from all the interesting conclusions being reached by commentators on both sides of the fence, the household vs individual angle, and the fact that it doesn't allow for the shared benefits all NZ'ers benefit from (health, corrections, education, etc)...could we not use it as the basis for some discussion about whether we have the balance right.
Like what are those transfers going to $150k+ households?
Like it or not - the reality is that some people/households take out more benefits than they pay tax. That is always going to be the case, however this graph does make it look like this goes on to an income level that some might have thought to be higher than necessary.
Is it sustainable?
Is the only solution to obtain more tax from those on higher incomes?
Could there be more done to lighten the load of benefits/WFF?
Are there enough incentives for those on benefits to get off them?
OK - riot shield raised.