This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the
Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a
concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early
days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new
tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and
every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset
tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year – even if it's
the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in
trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would
be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of $900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the
OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company
tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of
African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put
it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower
growth – making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive.
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills
under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" – with Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political
'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes – such as doctors and knowledge
workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want
those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those
earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax
rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on
all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the
political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the
Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a
concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a
post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early
days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new
tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and
every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset
tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year – even if it's
the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have
legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset
protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in
trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would
be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of
$900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the
OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company
tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of
African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put
it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower
growth – making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive.
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free
Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills
under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" – with
Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political
'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes – such as doctors and knowledge
workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want
those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those
earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax
rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on
all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I can't help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win in October they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands and claiming it wasn't them!!!
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the
political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the
Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a
concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a
post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early
days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new
tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and
every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset
tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year – even if it's >> the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have
legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset
protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in
trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would
be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of
$900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the
OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company
tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of
African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put
it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower
growth – making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive.
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free
Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills
under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" – with >> Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political
'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes – such as doctors and knowledge
workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want
those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those
earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax
rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on
all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I can't help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win in October they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands and claiming it wasn't them!!!You are being unfair to Crash; he named the source of the
'information' he gave; if it turns out to be a biassed and incorrect assessment that is not the fault of Crash.
To selectively compare part of a tax system with Australia is a common debating point in partisan discussions - I suspect some would not be
happy to adopt Australian tax rules if it was propose that we adopt
all federal taxes and the common elements of State taxes . . .
The "Taxpayers Union" is showing yet again that it is really just an astro-turf organisation for ACT/Nat.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), John BowesOh look at that, more sarcasm from Rich80105. who is incapable of balancve, of debate and of fairness. Sarcasm the lowest form of wit - in his case half of that.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the
political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the
Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a
concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a
post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early
days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new
tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and
every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset
tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year – even if it's
the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have
legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset
protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in
trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would
be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of
$900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the
OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company
tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of
African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put
it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower
growth – making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive.
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free
Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills
under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" – with
Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political
'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes – such as doctors and knowledge
workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want
those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those
earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax
rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on
all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I can't >>help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win in October >>they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands and claiming >>it wasn't them!!!
You are being unfair to Crash; he named the source of the
'information' he gave; if it turns out to be a biassed and incorrect >assessment that is not the fault of Crash.
To selectively compare part of a tax system with Australia is a common >debating point in partisan discussions - I suspect some would not be
happy to adopt Australian tax rules if it was propose that we adopt
all federal taxes and the common elements of State taxes . . .
The "Taxpayers Union" is showing yet again that it is really just an >astro-turf organisation for ACT/Nat.
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 3:06:11?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:bluntly. Your stupid as well as biased and incorrect!
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:You are being unfair to Crash; he named the source of the
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the
political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the
Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a
concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a
post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early
days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new
tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and
every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset
tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year – even if it's
the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have
legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset
protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in
trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would
be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of
$900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the
OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company
tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of
African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put
it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower
growth – making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive.
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free
Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills
under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" – with
Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political
'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes – such as doctors and knowledge
workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want
those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those
earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax
rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on
all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I can't help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win in October they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands and claiming it wasn't them!!!
'information' he gave; if it turns out to be a biassed and incorrect
assessment that is not the fault of Crash.
The only biased a incorrect assessor in the ng is you Rich!
To selectively compare part of a tax system with Australia is a common
debating point in partisan discussions - I suspect some would not be
happy to adopt Australian tax rules if it was propose that we adopt
all federal taxes and the common elements of State taxes . . .
Nothing selective Rich. He was just quoting one example. Now stop being biased and incorrect please. Though I now how hard that is for someone as biased and incorrect as you always are...
The "Taxpayers Union" is showing yet again that it is really just an
astro-turf organisation for ACT/Nat.
Lying doesn't support your typical biased and incorrect attitude Rich! The Taxpayer Union hammers National as much as it does Labour though facts like that are the sort of thing a biased and incorrect Labour spin doctor always ignore because to put it
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), John BowesSome suggest that you are an ex ACT supporter who was turned down as a candidate.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 3:06:11?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:You are being unfair to Crash; he named the source of the
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the
political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the
Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a
concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a
post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early >>> >> days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new >>> >> tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and >>> >> every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset
tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year – even if it's >>> >> the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have >>> >> legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset
protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in >>> >> trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would >>> >> be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of >>> >> $900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the
OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company
tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of
African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put
it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower
growth – making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive.
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free >>> >> Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills
under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" – with >>> >> Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political
'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes – such as doctors and knowledge
workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want >>> >> those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those
earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax
rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on >>> >> all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I
can't help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win in >>> >October they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands and
claiming it wasn't them!!!
'information' he gave; if it turns out to be a biassed and incorrect
assessment that is not the fault of Crash.
The only biased a incorrect assessor in the ng is you Rich!
To selectively compare part of a tax system with Australia is a common
debating point in partisan discussions - I suspect some would not be
happy to adopt Australian tax rules if it was propose that we adopt
all federal taxes and the common elements of State taxes . . .
Nothing selective Rich. He was just quoting one example. Now stop being >>biased and incorrect please. Though I now how hard that is for someone as >>biased and incorrect as you always are...
The "Taxpayers Union" is showing yet again that it is really just an
astro-turf organisation for ACT/Nat.
Lying doesn't support your typical biased and incorrect attitude Rich! The >>Taxpayer Union hammers National as much as it does Labour though facts like >>that are the sort of thing a biased and incorrect Labour spin doctor always >>ignore because to put it bluntly. Your stupid as well as biased and incorrect!
I agree, while nominally they want National to do well, they are more >supportive of ACT, as apparently are quite a few ex National party >supporters. Some suggest it may be a leadership issue . . .
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowesbluntly. Your stupid as well as biased and incorrect!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 3:06:11?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:You are being unfair to Crash; he named the source of the
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the
political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the >> >> Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a
concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a
post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early >> >> days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new >> >> tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and >> >> every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset >> >> tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year – even if it's
the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have >> >> legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset
protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in >> >> trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would >> >> be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of >> >> $900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the >> >> OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company >> >> tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of
African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put >> >> it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower >> >> growth – making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive.
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free >> >> Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills
under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" – with
Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political
'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes – such as doctors and knowledge
workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want >> >> those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those
earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax
rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on >> >> all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I can't help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win in October they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands and claiming it wasn't them!!!
'information' he gave; if it turns out to be a biassed and incorrect
assessment that is not the fault of Crash.
The only biased a incorrect assessor in the ng is you Rich!
To selectively compare part of a tax system with Australia is a common
debating point in partisan discussions - I suspect some would not be
happy to adopt Australian tax rules if it was propose that we adopt
all federal taxes and the common elements of State taxes . . .
Nothing selective Rich. He was just quoting one example. Now stop being biased and incorrect please. Though I now how hard that is for someone as biased and incorrect as you always are...
The "Taxpayers Union" is showing yet again that it is really just an
astro-turf organisation for ACT/Nat.
Lying doesn't support your typical biased and incorrect attitude Rich! The Taxpayer Union hammers National as much as it does Labour though facts like that are the sort of thing a biased and incorrect Labour spin doctor always ignore because to put it
I agree, while nominally they want National to do well, they are more supportive of ACT, as apparently are quite a few ex National party supporters. Some suggest it may be a leadership issue . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:Some suggest that you are an ex ACT supporter who was turned down as a >candidate.
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 3:06:11?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:You are being unfair to Crash; he named the source of the
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the >>>> >> political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the >>>> >> Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a
concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a
post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early >>>> >> days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new >>>> >> tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and >>>> >> every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset >>>> >> tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year – even if it's >>>> >> the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have >>>> >> legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset
protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in >>>> >> trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would >>>> >> be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of >>>> >> $900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the >>>> >> OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company >>>> >> tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of
African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put >>>> >> it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower >>>> >> growth – making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive.
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free >>>> >> Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills >>>> >> under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" – with >>>> >> Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political
'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes – such as doctors and knowledge
workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want >>>> >> those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those
earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax >>>> >> rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on >>>> >> all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I >>>> >can't help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win in >>>> >October they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands and
claiming it wasn't them!!!
'information' he gave; if it turns out to be a biassed and incorrect
assessment that is not the fault of Crash.
The only biased a incorrect assessor in the ng is you Rich!
To selectively compare part of a tax system with Australia is a common >>>> debating point in partisan discussions - I suspect some would not be
happy to adopt Australian tax rules if it was propose that we adopt
all federal taxes and the common elements of State taxes . . .
Nothing selective Rich. He was just quoting one example. Now stop being >>>biased and incorrect please. Though I now how hard that is for someone as >>>biased and incorrect as you always are...
The "Taxpayers Union" is showing yet again that it is really just an
astro-turf organisation for ACT/Nat.
Lying doesn't support your typical biased and incorrect attitude Rich! The >>>Taxpayer Union hammers National as much as it does Labour though facts like >>>that are the sort of thing a biased and incorrect Labour spin doctor always >>>ignore because to put it bluntly. Your stupid as well as biased and incorrect!
I agree, while nominally they want National to do well, they are more >>supportive of ACT, as apparently are quite a few ex National party >>supporters. Some suggest it may be a leadership issue . . .
Wow what revelations we see here.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 05:37:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyOnly stupid to even more stupid people like you.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:Some suggest that you are an ex ACT supporter who was turned down as a >>candidate.
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 3:06:11?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:You are being unfair to Crash; he named the source of the
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the >>>>> >> political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the >>>>> >> Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a >>>>> >> concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a >>>>> >> post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early >>>>> >> days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new >>>>> >> tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and >>>>> >> every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset >>>>> >> tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year – even if it's >>>>> >> the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have >>>>> >> legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset >>>>> >> protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in >>>>> >> trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would >>>>> >> be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of >>>>> >> $900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the >>>>> >> OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company >>>>> >> tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of
African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put >>>>> >> it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower >>>>> >> growth – making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive. >>>>> >>
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free >>>>> >> Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills >>>>> >> under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" – with >>>>> >> Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political >>>>> >> 'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes – such as doctors and knowledge
workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want >>>>> >> those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those
earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax >>>>> >> rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on >>>>> >> all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I >>>>> >can't help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win >>>>> >in
October they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands >>>>> >and
claiming it wasn't them!!!
'information' he gave; if it turns out to be a biassed and incorrect >>>>> assessment that is not the fault of Crash.
The only biased a incorrect assessor in the ng is you Rich!
To selectively compare part of a tax system with Australia is a common >>>>> debating point in partisan discussions - I suspect some would not be >>>>> happy to adopt Australian tax rules if it was propose that we adopt
all federal taxes and the common elements of State taxes . . .
Nothing selective Rich. He was just quoting one example. Now stop being >>>>biased and incorrect please. Though I now how hard that is for someone as >>>>biased and incorrect as you always are...
The "Taxpayers Union" is showing yet again that it is really just an >>>>> astro-turf organisation for ACT/Nat.
Lying doesn't support your typical biased and incorrect attitude Rich! The >>>>Taxpayer Union hammers National as much as it does Labour though facts like >>>>that are the sort of thing a biased and incorrect Labour spin doctor always >>>>ignore because to put it bluntly. Your stupid as well as biased and >>>>incorrect!
I agree, while nominally they want National to do well, they are more >>>supportive of ACT, as apparently are quite a few ex National party >>>supporters. Some suggest it may be a leadership issue . . .
Wow what revelations we see here.
At one time ACT were preferable to National as they were not as
extremist authoritarian - yes they were far right economically, but in
some areas they did want to allow New Zealanders to make their
decisions with only reasonable restrictions. Sadly in the last year
Seymour has become more authoritarian as he has sought to become
larger than National - but some of their so-called 'liberty' policies
remain stupidly dangerous (eg gun policy - but they try not to talk
about that!).
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 05:37:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:Some suggest that you are an ex ACT supporter who was turned down as a >>candidate.
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 3:06:11?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:You are being unfair to Crash; he named the source of the
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the >>>>> >> political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the
Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a >>>>> >> concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a >>>>> >> post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early
days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new
tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and
every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset
tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year – even if it's
the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have
legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset >>>>> >> protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in
trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would
be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of
$900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the
OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company
tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of >>>>> >> African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put
it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower
growth – making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive. >>>>> >>
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free
Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills >>>>> >> under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" – with
Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political >>>>> >> 'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes – such as doctors and knowledge >>>>> >> workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want
those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those >>>>> >> earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax >>>>> >> rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on
all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I >>>>> >can't help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win
in
October they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands
and
claiming it wasn't them!!!
'information' he gave; if it turns out to be a biassed and incorrect >>>>> assessment that is not the fault of Crash.
The only biased a incorrect assessor in the ng is you Rich!
To selectively compare part of a tax system with Australia is a common >>>>> debating point in partisan discussions - I suspect some would not be >>>>> happy to adopt Australian tax rules if it was propose that we adopt >>>>> all federal taxes and the common elements of State taxes . . .
Nothing selective Rich. He was just quoting one example. Now stop being >>>>biased and incorrect please. Though I now how hard that is for someone as
biased and incorrect as you always are...
The "Taxpayers Union" is showing yet again that it is really just an >>>>> astro-turf organisation for ACT/Nat.
Lying doesn't support your typical biased and incorrect attitude Rich! The
Taxpayer Union hammers National as much as it does Labour though facts like
that are the sort of thing a biased and incorrect Labour spin doctor always
ignore because to put it bluntly. Your stupid as well as biased and >>>>incorrect!
I agree, while nominally they want National to do well, they are more >>>supportive of ACT, as apparently are quite a few ex National party >>>supporters. Some suggest it may be a leadership issue . . .
Wow what revelations we see here.
At one time ACT were preferable to National as they were not asOnly stupid to even more stupid people like you.
extremist authoritarian - yes they were far right economically, but in >some areas they did want to allow New Zealanders to make their
decisions with only reasonable restrictions. Sadly in the last year >Seymour has become more authoritarian as he has sought to become
larger than National - but some of their so-called 'liberty' policies >remain stupidly dangerous (eg gun policy - but they try not to talk
about that!).
And ACT are not and never have been far right - there are no far right political parties in our government.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 05:37:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:Some suggest that you are an ex ACT supporter who was turned down as a >>candidate.
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 3:06:11?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:You are being unfair to Crash; he named the source of the
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the >>>>> >> political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the >>>>> >> Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a >>>>> >> concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a >>>>> >> post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early >>>>> >> days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new >>>>> >> tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and >>>>> >> every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset >>>>> >> tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year – even if it's
the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have >>>>> >> legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset >>>>> >> protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in >>>>> >> trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would >>>>> >> be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of >>>>> >> $900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the >>>>> >> OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company >>>>> >> tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of
African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put >>>>> >> it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower >>>>> >> growth – making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive. >>>>> >>
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free >>>>> >> Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills >>>>> >> under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" – with
Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political >>>>> >> 'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes – such as doctors and knowledge >>>>> >> workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want >>>>> >> those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those
earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax >>>>> >> rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on >>>>> >> all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I >>>>> >can't help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win in
October they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands and
claiming it wasn't them!!!
'information' he gave; if it turns out to be a biassed and incorrect >>>>> assessment that is not the fault of Crash.
The only biased a incorrect assessor in the ng is you Rich!
To selectively compare part of a tax system with Australia is a common >>>>> debating point in partisan discussions - I suspect some would not be >>>>> happy to adopt Australian tax rules if it was propose that we adopt
all federal taxes and the common elements of State taxes . . .
Nothing selective Rich. He was just quoting one example. Now stop being >>>>biased and incorrect please. Though I now how hard that is for someone as >>>>biased and incorrect as you always are...
The "Taxpayers Union" is showing yet again that it is really just an >>>>> astro-turf organisation for ACT/Nat.
Lying doesn't support your typical biased and incorrect attitude Rich! The >>>>Taxpayer Union hammers National as much as it does Labour though facts like >>>>that are the sort of thing a biased and incorrect Labour spin doctor always >>>>ignore because to put it bluntly. Your stupid as well as biased and incorrect!
I agree, while nominally they want National to do well, they are more >>>supportive of ACT, as apparently are quite a few ex National party >>>supporters. Some suggest it may be a leadership issue . . .
Wow what revelations we see here.
At one time ACT were preferable to National as they were not as
extremist authoritarian - yes they were far right economically, but in
some areas they did want to allow New Zealanders to make their
decisions with only reasonable restrictions. Sadly in the last year
Seymour has become more authoritarian as he has sought to become
larger than National - but some of their so-called 'liberty' policies
remain stupidly dangerous (eg gun policy - but they try not to talk
about that!).
On 17 Jun 2023 00:09:49 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-06-16, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 05:37:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:Some suggest that you are an ex ACT supporter who was turned down as a >>>candidate.
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 3:06:11?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:You are being unfair to Crash; he named the source of the
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the
political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the
Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a >>>>>> >> concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a >>>>>> >> post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early
days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new
tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and
every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset
tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year ? even if it's
the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have
legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset >>>>>> >> protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in
trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would
be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of
$900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the
OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company
tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of >>>>>> >> African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put
it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower
growth ? making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive. >>>>>> >>
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free
Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills
under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" ? with
Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political >>>>>> >> 'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes ? such as doctors and knowledge >>>>>> >> workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want
those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those >>>>>> >> earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax
rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on
all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and >>>>>> >> encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I
can't help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win in
October they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands and
claiming it wasn't them!!!
'information' he gave; if it turns out to be a biassed and incorrect >>>>>> assessment that is not the fault of Crash.
The only biased a incorrect assessor in the ng is you Rich!
To selectively compare part of a tax system with Australia is a common
debating point in partisan discussions - I suspect some would not be >>>>>> happy to adopt Australian tax rules if it was propose that we adopt >>>>>> all federal taxes and the common elements of State taxes . . .
Nothing selective Rich. He was just quoting one example. Now stop being >>>>>biased and incorrect please. Though I now how hard that is for someone as
biased and incorrect as you always are...
The "Taxpayers Union" is showing yet again that it is really just an >>>>>> astro-turf organisation for ACT/Nat.
Lying doesn't support your typical biased and incorrect attitude Rich! The
Taxpayer Union hammers National as much as it does Labour though facts like
that are the sort of thing a biased and incorrect Labour spin doctor always
ignore because to put it bluntly. Your stupid as well as biased and incorrect!
I agree, while nominally they want National to do well, they are more >>>>supportive of ACT, as apparently are quite a few ex National party >>>>supporters. Some suggest it may be a leadership issue . . .
Wow what revelations we see here.
At one time ACT were preferable to National as they were not as
extremist authoritarian - yes they were far right economically, but in
some areas they did want to allow New Zealanders to make their
decisions with only reasonable restrictions. Sadly in the last year
Seymour has become more authoritarian as he has sought to become
larger than National - but some of their so-called 'liberty' policies
remain stupidly dangerous (eg gun policy - but they try not to talk
about that!).
There is a saying that, One sees faults in others that you have in oneself.
Counter transferrence is another way of putting it.
ACT is is in election mode, just as are the other parties, constant slaggingACT have been better at that than National, and I suspect that is part
the other party (ies) is not going to get voters exceited about your party. >People want to know what a x party will do (for them).
of the reason for their small increase in support, but it probably
also creates a cap for that support as well; I doubt they will get
much closer to National's level of support.
On 2023-06-16, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 05:37:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:Some suggest that you are an ex ACT supporter who was turned down as a >>>candidate.
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 3:06:11?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:27:55?AM UTC+12, Crash wrote:You are being unfair to Crash; he named the source of the
This is sourced from a Taxpayers Union newsletter but excluding the >>>>>> >> political content. Ordinarily this is of little interest because the >>>>>> >> Greens will never be in a position to implement this, but it is a >>>>>> >> concern that even one of these proposals is adopted by Labour in a >>>>>> >> post-election government.
PM Hipkins has not ruled out any of these measures yet but it is early
days.
=====
- Anyone with assets in a trust ??
While Marama Davidson and James Shaw are trying to say that their new >>>>>> >> tax will only impact the 'wealthy', their proposals will see each and >>>>>> >> every one of New Zealand's around 400,000 trusts paying a 1.5% asset >>>>>> >> tax from the first dollar of assets each and every year ? even if it's
the family home, family farm, or small business!
Trusts aren't necessarily the preserve of the wealthy. Many of us have
legitimate purposes for a trust, such as for relationship or asset >>>>>> >> protection
Even worse, the Greens tax is on gross assets, not net assets held in >>>>>> >> trust. That means that a $1,000,000 home owned by a family trust would
be liable for $15,000 in tax every year, even if it had a mortgage of >>>>>> >> $900,000!
- Anyone with shares in a company ??
Despite already having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the >>>>>> >> OECD, James Shaw wants to hammer business with a hike in the company >>>>>> >> tax rate from 28% to 33%.
The Greens' proposal would mean only Venezuela and a handful of >>>>>> >> African and South American countries would have higher rates. To put >>>>>> >> it mildly, this would significantly hit investment and lead to lower >>>>>> >> growth ? making all Kiwis poorer.
Australia's 30% rate would suddenly become a lot more attractive. >>>>>> >>
- Anyone earning wages or PAYE income??
While the Greens have been quick to promote a proposal for a "Tax Free
Threshold", in fact many New Zealanders would face higher tax bills >>>>>> >> under the Greens' proposals.
The tax free threshold is a classic political "bait and switch" ? with
Kiwis facing higher marginal tax rates as the cost of a political >>>>>> >> 'gift'. It would severely reduce incentives to work.
For those on the highest incomes ? such as doctors and knowledge >>>>>> >> workers with the skills New Zealand desperately needs, the Greens want
those earning $120,000 to $180,000 to pay a 39% rate while those >>>>>> >> earning over $180,000 will be forced to pay an eye-watering 45% tax >>>>>> >> rate.
- Anyone with net total assets over $2 million ??
As part of the package, the Greens want to force a 2.5% annual tax on >>>>>> >> all personally held net assets over $2 million.
Double taxation like this disincentivises wealth creation and
encourages entrepreneurs to invest outside of New Zealand.
=====
Hat-tip - DPF
--
Crash McBash
Typical ill thought out attacks on everyone so typical of the left! I >>>>>> >can't help wondering if this wasn't initiated by Labour so if they win in
October they can bring all these proposals in while wringing their hands and
claiming it wasn't them!!!
'information' he gave; if it turns out to be a biassed and incorrect >>>>>> assessment that is not the fault of Crash.
The only biased a incorrect assessor in the ng is you Rich!
To selectively compare part of a tax system with Australia is a common >>>>>> debating point in partisan discussions - I suspect some would not be >>>>>> happy to adopt Australian tax rules if it was propose that we adopt >>>>>> all federal taxes and the common elements of State taxes . . .
Nothing selective Rich. He was just quoting one example. Now stop being >>>>>biased and incorrect please. Though I now how hard that is for someone as >>>>>biased and incorrect as you always are...
The "Taxpayers Union" is showing yet again that it is really just an >>>>>> astro-turf organisation for ACT/Nat.
Lying doesn't support your typical biased and incorrect attitude Rich! The >>>>>Taxpayer Union hammers National as much as it does Labour though facts like
that are the sort of thing a biased and incorrect Labour spin doctor always
ignore because to put it bluntly. Your stupid as well as biased and incorrect!
I agree, while nominally they want National to do well, they are more >>>>supportive of ACT, as apparently are quite a few ex National party >>>>supporters. Some suggest it may be a leadership issue . . .
Wow what revelations we see here.
At one time ACT were preferable to National as they were not as
extremist authoritarian - yes they were far right economically, but in
some areas they did want to allow New Zealanders to make their
decisions with only reasonable restrictions. Sadly in the last year
Seymour has become more authoritarian as he has sought to become
larger than National - but some of their so-called 'liberty' policies
remain stupidly dangerous (eg gun policy - but they try not to talk
about that!).
There is a saying that, One sees faults in others that you have in oneself.
Counter transferrence is another way of putting it.
ACT is is in election mode, just as are the other parties, constant slagging >the other party (ies) is not going to get voters exceited about your party. >People want to know what a x party will do (for them).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 109:44:08 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,727 |