A fair tax

38 comments on “A fair tax ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Pat 1

   13 February 2010 at 9:43 am

   “Considering a tin of baked beans is at least half the price of a tin of pet food, then you must be pretty friggin stupid to be eating pet food, Madam. Are you part of the 7% still wanting Helen Clark as PM?”
   • Mac1 1.1

     13 February 2010 at 1:23 pm

     When out collecting for charity in the sixties, I remember being greeted at one door by two huge dogs followed by their owner who said they (the owners) could not afford to give to charity.

     Since, Pat, as you say, baked beans are cheaper by half than pet food, this household must have spent enough for a person to live on just in dog food for their dogs.

     Charity and paying taxes, two hallmarks of a civilised person accepting personal responsibility for his or her part in society. Not like the mean-spiritedness shown in the comments such as yours or that from the bilious, blind to gender, one below.

     Anti-spam word ‘touches’. Some people are soft touches and allow human stories, or cartoons, to touch their hearts. I have read stories of the poor eating pet food for cheap animal protein. I prefer a soft heart to the other.
2. simon coffey 2

   13 February 2010 at 9:49 am

   aaah,but no meaty juice-ness in a tin of baked beans!

   I don’t want Helen back I just want the men in grey suits gone
   • Pat 2.1

     13 February 2010 at 9:53 am

     So you want Tony Ryall for PM?
     • simon coffey 2.1.1

       13 February 2010 at 6:57 pm

       I speak figuratively…but you knew that!
3. RedLogix 3

   13 February 2010 at 9:54 am

   Of course GST is an unfair tax because the wealthy have a much larger portion of their cash flow directed towards financial transactions.. which is GST free.

   (And why of course FTT’s like Tobin Taxes never get mentioned.)
4. Peter Bilson 4

   13 February 2010 at 10:00 am

   If a bum eating catfood cannot help himself, why should I help him?
   Clark voters prefer Chef.

   [lprent: and people like you prefer looking for table crumbs falling from Key and congratulating yourself on how lucky you are. Wee mutts with a very limited pack mentality quivering with pleasure in front of their ‘betters’ seems to describe most of the right.

   But I really didn’t hear a point in your comment – just some pathetic jerk being snide because he could sneer at someone else. ]
   • RedLogix 4.1

     13 February 2010 at 10:06 am

     If a prick making vile comments fails at being human, why should I not turn him into catfood?
     • Peter Bilson 4.1.1

       13 February 2010 at 10:13 am

       Making vile comments is being human wank wad.

       [lprent: Agreed – that does appear to be your trademark. When are you going to rectify your deficiencies? Or should I carry on enhancing your comments to express what you appear to be unable to do – having some substance rather than just being bilious. ]
       • RedLogix 4.1.1.1

         13 February 2010 at 10:28 am

         Oh your just drunk…
   • ConorJoe 4.2

     13 February 2010 at 11:03 am

     i’m sorry P.B, did you see a ‘bum’ in scotts cartoon? you are doing the classic rightie move of MAKING SHIT UP
5. Di 5

   13 February 2010 at 10:52 am

   John Key would be so proud of the quality of the comments of his supporter, Peter Bile. What generosity of spirit!
6. Tiger Mountain 6

   13 February 2010 at 11:53 am

   A classic Tom Scott piece. Commenter Peter Bilious has mis-thunk. The cartoonist is pointing out a contradiction not suggesting what should be done about it.
7. pointer 7

   13 February 2010 at 11:56 am

   I’m not economist, but I was flabbergasted at Key’s defense of GST as “not necessarily” a regressive tax when questioned by Sean Plunkett. He kept saying that high income earners would actually pay more in nominal terms, repeating that word: nominal. It was as if he really thought people don’t understand what that means.

   I fear he may be right.
   • felix 7.1

     13 February 2010 at 3:31 pm

     It also suggests that he doesn’t know what “regressive” means. Which suggests that he doesn’t understand what percentages are.

     (or he thinks we don’t)
     • Fisiani 7.1.1

       13 February 2010 at 4:25 pm

       I take you do understand percentages and that a GST rise of 2.5% is only a total price rise of 2.2%. ie 22 cents in 10 dollars.
       Balance that against the coming Budget tax cuts for the MANY with only a FEW wealthy landlords paying more.
       Not a Communist by 20 -no heart.
       Still a Communist by 30 -no brain.
       Obviously a blog written by teenagers!

       [lprent: Actually no. I’m the oldest at 50.

       And before you get off into the usual gormless wingnut troll idiocies. I’ve never worked for the civil service (apart from time in the army). Never worked for or been a member of union. Have always worked in export businesses except for my time in the army. Have pretty much always been taxed at the top rates. Have a degree in science, another in business, and dribs and drabs of several other disciplines. You’ll find this type of profile isn’t uncommon around here.

       Personally I think that they must issue idiotic stereotypes to the wingnut trolls like you when they punch you out of the frigging mold. Your ‘intelligence’ appears entirely framed in restating what someone else has said and shows virtually no signs of any creativity or innovation.

       You’re politically illiterate otherwise you’d realize that mis-quoting Winston Churchill is tantamount to swearing audibly at a wedding.

       Read the about and the policy so that you don’t look like such a tremendous teen-age dork. Even the teenage dorks around here (eh KT) look better prepared to live around this site than you do. ]
       • Marty G 7.1.1.1

         13 February 2010 at 4:28 pm

         “Balance that against the coming Budget tax cuts for the MANY ”

         We’ll believe it when we see it

         Did you believe your hero when he promised you ‘North of $50’ in tax cuts each week? What about when he passed his last set of tax cuts, only to repeal them a couple of months later?
         • felix 7.1.1.1.1

           13 February 2010 at 4:44 pm

           Straight down the memory hole I suspect Marty.

           Fisiani it sounds like you were a sucker thinking in platitudes at 20, and a sucker thinking in platitudes at 30, and I suspect you’ll die a sucker thinking in platitudes too.

           (probably from high blood pressure, angry about young people and that bloody music, it all sounds the same cos you stopped growing in your late teens)
       • Fisiani 7.1.1.2

         13 February 2010 at 6:48 pm

         I humbly apologise for missing out the one word that was wrong in my post.
         I should have said “obviously a blog apparently written by teenagers”
         I sincerely concede You are not a teenager……………..
       • kiwiteen123 7.1.1.3

         13 February 2010 at 6:52 pm

         @Lynn. Thanks. Age isn’t everything. 😉

         [lprent: It is good for giving perspective. You tend to grow out of your current habit of dealing with things as being absolutes. ]
8. Deus ex Machina 8

   13 February 2010 at 1:10 pm

   Anyone with a Rolls Royce – and probably anything even half the price – will have it owned by a company or partnership which reclaims the GST, and claims insurance, petrol etc. as business expenses.
   • Draco T Bastard 8.1

     13 February 2010 at 1:38 pm

     Exactly.
9. Luke.xensen 9

   13 February 2010 at 2:51 pm

   Interestingly if the Rolls Royce was bought in Australia, it would be somewhat more expensive. In Aus there is a luxury car tax of 33% for the value of vehicles above $57,000.
   How about bringing that in here to help us catch up with australia.
   • Deus ex Machina 9.1

     13 February 2010 at 3:03 pm

     Including the Xensen Interceptor? (The bird-puller of my adolescent dreams!)
10. kiwiteen123 10

    13 February 2010 at 5:39 pm

    How do you define fair?
    • Mac1 10.1

      13 February 2010 at 6:01 pm

      Use a dictionary, Google for a definition, ask someone knowledgeable, that’s how you can define fair.

      Anti-spam “minds”, which I do about English.
      • kiwiteen123 10.1.1

        13 February 2010 at 6:02 pm

        I know the normal definition. I was asking for the left-wing one.
        • Mac1 10.1.1.1

          13 February 2010 at 6:22 pm

          No, you asked how to define fair. That is not asking for a definition. What is your definition of fair, being a right -winger?
          • kiwiteen123 10.1.1.1.1

            13 February 2010 at 6:27 pm

            free from favoritism.
            Equal.
11. Mac1 11

    13 February 2010 at 6:31 pm

    That’s one definition, very popular with children, as teachers know.

    What about considerations of equity, need, opportunity as well?
    • kiwiteen123 11.1

      13 February 2010 at 6:53 pm

      Also very popular with google. Which you suggested me to use.
      • Mac1 11.1.1

        13 February 2010 at 7:08 pm

        Google’s right wing?
        • kiwiteen123 11.1.1.1

          13 February 2010 at 7:16 pm

          No. Right-wingers just use neutral definitions.

          [lprent: Bullshit. ]
          • Mac1 11.1.1.1.1

            13 February 2010 at 7:31 pm

            GOL.
            Nice jousting with you, kiddo. Back to cooking my tea, learning my lines and lessons with my french mistress, maybe later.
          • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1.2

            14 February 2010 at 12:14 pm

            No, right wingers use definitions that best suit their purposes. You are most definitely guilty of this on this blog.

Links to post

1. Gabriella Turek: posted on 12 February 2010 at 11:39 pm
2. Alastair Jamieson: posted on 13 February 2010 at 11:45 am
3. Karen Brown: posted on 13 February 2010 at 11:50 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS