Give that bludger a tax cut

Written By: - Date published: 12:24 pm, April 19th, 2010 - 101 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, Economy, tax - Tags:

Patent lawyer John David Hardie is a bludger. You and me, we pay our taxes. We know we get public services and a decent society out of it. This rich prick is trying to get out of a $10.3 million tax bill. I reckon that’s tax on about $26 million of income.

The bludger’s even got a gall to say he doesn’t have to pay because he’s Maori. What a bastard. Here he is with his tens of millions pretending to Maori – he provided no evidence he is – to get out of tax while half of actual Maori have to make do on less than $25,000 a year. And they pay their taxes.

So what to do with this rich bludger? How about give him a $1.25 million tax cut. That’s what that other rich layabout John Key is planning. Apparently, it’s for our own good that we give these bludgers hand outs, paid for by us with more GST and higher rents.

Can you feel the trickle down? It’s the rich pissing on you and me.

101 comments on “Give that bludger a tax cut”

  1. Tigger 1

    Looking forward to the plethora of right wingers lining up to argue this guy isn’t a ‘bludger’ because he made his own money and there appears to be no evidence here he accepted money from the system. Because welfare handouts is all our tax dollars pay for…

  2. Pascal's bookie 2

    Hardie had argued he was not required to make tax contributions because he was of Maori descent. No provision was made in the Treaty of Waitangi for him to do so.

    heh.

    Looks like a local wrinkle on the Sovereign Citizen idea.

    It can get quite weird

  3. Bill 3

    This going off at a wee bit tangent, but if Hardie is claiming to be Maori, what is he basing that claim on?

    As far as I understand there are two ways to lay claim to a cultural heritage. One is through blood and the other is through upbringing.

    The former is the dynamic in the US where the criteria of who is and who is not Native American is determined by % of ‘pure’ N.A. blood. The result is going to be a quiet disappearance of all indigenous people ( and awkward political problems) as blood lines get mixed and ‘purity’ diminished below the mandated threshold.

    But if upbringing determines cultural identification then there is a potentially interesting situation where Maori elites who embrace corporate culture could be ‘disenfranchised’ ( wrong word…mental blanking in progress) by ordinary Maori who they rip off on the grounds that they ( the brown table types) have forsaken their claim to be Maori because of their choice of culture…their adopted culture…and so all that they have stolen must be returned. In other words, grievance based on the argument that since settlements were paid out by white skinned corporate bastards to brown skinned corporate bastards, that Maori and Maoridom received no compensation at all but suffered a double whammy at the hands of the Treaty ‘partner’ who merely juggled resources from one of its hands to the other….from one branch of the elite to another.

    Back to the post. Is Hardie claiming to be Maori because he has some tiny x% of Maori blood in him? NZ doesn’t have a % thresh hold…which also conveniently leads to a disappearance of indigenous claims of grievance etc or any officially recognised difference of identity because of the ‘we are all mongrels’ argument.

  4. Andrew 4

    not trying to detract from the post as for once i totally agree with you. but the tax and GST is a total figure over a 13 year period. so if he is supposed to be paying 730k tax a year, then his tax cut would be 100k a year which is much more reasonable 🙂

    • Bright Red 4.1

      But it would be $1.25 million over 13 years, eh?

      • Andrew 4.1.1

        yep … but the way Zet worded it sounded like it was a $1.25 mill tax cut a year. not saying it’s any better, just that it’s not as big as it sounds when you read the post.

  5. Mac1 5

    Sure his name isn’t John Wesley Hardin? Same business ethic, at least.

  6. h 6

    Although I’m a nat voter, happy for you to get stuck into them (unlike most on my side of the fence).

    BUT…if you do get stuck into them, get your facts right.

    This guy didn’t earn $26m of income. As he has refused to file a tax return, the IRD have ‘guessed’ the amount of income he earned. When guessing, they go well over what the person actually would have earned in an attempt to pressure the person into filing their tax return. Obviously this pressure didn’t get to the ‘bludger’ discussed in the article.

    Again, get your facts right.

    • So you don’t have any ‘facts’ either? You don’t know whether he did or did not earn $26 million, but you assume IRD are asking for more than what he really owes to scare him into settling. More likely, IRD have a pretty good idea of his income based on the business tax paid on the patent earnings. His personal earnings would be presumably be directly related to the profits after tax of those business dealings.

      But, whatever the actual amount he is scabbing off the rest of us, he’s a twat. As the song says; ‘some rob you with a gun, some rob you with a fountain pen’.

      • Rex Widerstrom 6.1.1

        Not defending the gentelman in question (and particularly not his pathetic justification), but “h” is right, TVoR… the IRD will essentially pull a figure out of its fundament based on a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

        There’s a reason they’re always happy to publicise the figures they’re chasing but not the calculations used to arrive at them.

        They then hit the unsuspecting taxpayer with it, and you have to hire a bevy of lawyers and accountants to prove them wrong.

        When you finally do, they act like they’re doing you a favour by accepting the lower assessment.

        In my case they were out by over 1000% (yes, a thousand). Since it didn’t go to court there’s no way to recover the thousands I had to spend on a specialist lawyer.

        And I’ve personally heard of worse cases than mine.

  7. FWIW I blogged about this on Saturday. You’re right; this guy is a bludger, although I didn’t use that particular label. His defence is an absolute non-starter IMHO, and I hope that the Commissioner comes down on him with all force.

  8. big bruv 8

    All power to the man, given the way this government (and the previous Labour government) waste our money then I hope he gets away with it.

    Lower and flatter taxes are a much fairer way to go…..but then that would not allow for an envy tax which the left are so keen on.

    • felix 8.1

      Good on you, bruv. Why should maoris pay tax eh?

      Moron.

      • nzfp 8.1.1

        Ahakoa he Pakeha, he Maori – none of us should pay taxes. An economy run correctly would not require the citizens to pay taxes.

        • Bright Red 8.1.1.1

          In this ‘correctly run economy’ does the money for law enforcement, roads (I can’t see you tolling every cul-de-sac), educating the workforce and keeping it healthy, and defence come from the gold at the end of the rainbow, or from the (snicker) generosity of rich bludgers like Hardie?

          • nzfp 8.1.1.1.1

            Hey Bright Red,
            I think you will be surprised at my economic and political inclinations – I’m not a Libertarian or a Free Market (neo-liberal) proponent. Please have a look at my original comment dated 19 April 2010 at 2:04 pm below and my response to Rex Widerstrom below that – although Rex’s response has a lot of links in it right now and is likely in the spam bucket.

            peace

            [lprent: rescued. The spam engine doesn’t like naked links. Have a look at the FAQ about how to dress them up neatly. ]

    • Bright Red 8.2

      big bruv. Let’s steer away from fantasy worlds where society runs on bubble gum and John Key’s grins.

      Instead, look at the reality, if this bludger paid his tax, you wouldn’t have to pay so much, eh? Or you could get better public services (roads, police, hospital etc, you use them even if not directly). This guy is screwing you over and you’re bending over and asking for some more.

      • Pascal's bookie 8.2.1

        “Instead, look at the reality”

        Good luck with that approach BR

        hint

      • big bruv 8.2.2

        Red

        Given you live in a fantasy world I think steering away from it might be a tad difficult for you.

        The words “better” and “public service” just do not belong in the same sentence, nine years of Labour has shown us that the public sector could not run a booze up in a brewery.

        You are also being dishonest to suggest that the public would ever be given the chance of paying less tax, again, nine years of Labour demonstrated that the left believe they should tax their citizens as highly as they possibly can, what this man pays or does not pay has no impact on how much Labour would steal from me.

        The only people who are screwing me over are National and the previous Labour government, they take money from me and hand it over with no conditions attached to those bludgers who cannot be bothered working for a living or give it away to breeders who see the DPB as a lifestyle.

        • felix 8.2.2.1

          So you want zero tax and zero public services.

          Thanks bruv, you’ve just opted to sit this discussion out. Moron.

          • big bruv 8.2.2.1.1

            Who said anything about zero public services Felix?

            Do try and keep up, if you are struggling, get an adult to read it for you.

            • felix 8.2.2.1.1.1

              All power to the man, given the way this government (and the previous Labour government) waste our money then I hope he gets away with it.

              That’s where you advocate zero tax (unless you think it should be zero tax just for this one guy, but that wouldn’t make any sense and you’d be a moron to suggest it.)

              The words “better’ and “public service’ just do not belong in the same sentence,

              That’s where you express your contempt for and lack of faith in the public provision of services (quite apart from the obvious fact that once you advocate zero tax you pretty much advocate zero public services by default, unless you’re actually stupid enough to think you can have one without the other. Maybe you are.)

              And drop the sad attempts at humour bruv, you’re not smart enough.

              • big bruv

                Felix

                Do stop telling lies,

                Earlier on I said I favoured low or flat tax rates, because you are losing this argument so comprehensively you have restored to telling lies, nowhere have I said there should be zero tax.

                I do have contempt for 90% of the public service, on that you are indeed correct, the private sector can and do offer a better and cheaper service.

                Now, I am happy to continue this chat but given that you have been so thoroughly hammered I suspect you will run away or burst into abuse mode, you lefties really do lose all sense of perspective when it comes to getting tour filthy little hands on productive peoples money.

              • felix

                Whatever. Those were direct quotes from you. Today.

                If you want to pretend someone else wrote them using your name and email, go ahead.

                If you’ve changed your mind and now think that this guy should pay his fucking tax like everyone else then cool, we can have a proper discussion. Otherwise you might as well fuck off back to that slimy little hole where you hang out with people who name themselves after nazis and no-one will question your idiotic ill-thought out ideas.

                [lprent: The language and tone is starting to go over the top in the last sentence. Mind you with both BB’s, mine does sometimes too. Cool down – he isn’t worth getting mad over. ]

              • felix

                Sorry Lynn, will do.

              • Captain Rehab

                I’d tell you to fuck off to somalia bruv but you wouldn’t because you’re a dirty wee coward who’s happy to drive on roads paid for by my taxes use the healthcare paid for by my taxes and take advantage of all the other stuff I’ve paid for while whinging about paying a little yourself. So yeah, now I think of it, fuck off to somalia you parasite.

      • Jared 8.2.3

        Just hypothetically. Assuming he was a prudent individual, he would have likely invested or utilised the income he had received, and duely further down the chain if he had spent the money he would have provided a stimulus for the businesses he had purchased from, or if he had invested part of the income he would have increased the loanable funds allowing more funds to be available for investment or even home loans depending on the provider? my point is, that while its wrong, the public may not exactly absolutely miss out on the benefit. Obviously everyone should pay their taxes as obligated, but on a tangent, we don’t exactly always lose out when tax is avoided (especially in the case of private individuals, organisations are a different kettle of fish)

        • Bright Red 8.2.3.1

          Would you use the same logic if a stranger steals 3 dollars out of your wallet and spends it at the shops?

          because that’s basically what this guy has done to each and every Kiwi taxpayer.

          Honestly, Jared, that’s really really stupid.

          • Bill 8.2.3.1.1

            “Would you use the same logic if a stranger steals 3 dollars out of your wallet and spends it at the shops?”

            You mean like a boss or a shareholder does every hour of every working day to every worker in NZ? Although that’s probably more like $12…every hour. Stolen. Spent. By them.

            And we acquiesce. Stupid us

            • big bruv 8.2.3.1.1.1

              “You mean like a boss or a shareholder does every hour of every working day to every worker in NZ? Although that’s probably more like $12 every hour. Stolen. Spent. By them.

              And we acquiesce. Stupid us”

              Except those workers would not have a bloody job if it were not for the boss or shareholders.

              Jesus you lefites are mind numbingly thick sometimes.

              • Bright Red

                did the boss make the land? Did he make the machines? Did he make the raw materials?

                No. the land was there, the rest was made or gathered by other workers. The bosses just get rich by controlting the capital – the wealth that the workers and nature produce – like every elite throughout history.

              • Bill

                By your logic, if the boss is doing a job, then the boss must have a boss. Otherwise there would be no job for the boss, right? And then the boss of the boss, well he’d also need to have a boss and so it goes, on and on…an infinite regression…an absurdity that cannot square with reality.

                But what if we turn it on its head and suggest that the boss would not have a job were it not for the workers? What if…and I know this just sounds really out there….but what if the workers were historically forced to accept ‘the boss’ under pain of destitution or threats of levels of physical violence up to and including death?

                And then what if over a few generations and under he weight of unremitting propaganda, workers had forgotten how these things were imposed and how previous generations of workers had fought against their imposition…sometimes being executed by ‘the boss’ through use of his influence on the state…sometimes being deported and more often than not being forced to live a life of such hardship that an early death was a foregone conclusion?

                And what if most of all that still happened in most of the world? Like, say throughout much of Africa and Latin America and the Middle East and large chunks of Asia….

                Ever given it any thought, bruv? Or have the cumulative effects of the propaganda we are all subjected to played out so successfully in you that you have totally lost touch with all the stuff that happened in the past in the lead up to today? And are you so enthralled and excited by the promises of endless beads and baubles and progress, that you are blind to what is a crushing reality for most of your fellow human beings?

                Or do you recognise all this but simply just not care?

  9. nzfp 9

    Kia ora ano tatou,
    At the risk of sounding as if I’m defending this guy I most certainly am not I believe that we are all taxed too much. As we all know, economics is distilled into three basic properties, land, labour and capital where land refers to anything that is provided for free by nature (land, oil, mineral wealth, money). Until the 19th century it was widely accepted by classical economists that labour should not be taxed, rather land should be taxed. It was also demonstrated by Ricardo, Mills and Marx that a tax on land is taken directly out of the interest paid to the bank (capital) and – due to the nature of the market – not passed on to labour in the form of rent. Therefore, this bludger should be let off GST and income tax and so should we all – with a proportional tax applied to land, oil, gold and any other naturally occuring commodity that belongs to all New Zealanders as a right of being a citizen of this nation. In addition to a Financial Transaction Tax targeted at financial speculators (John Key) a land tax targeted at land speculators (Bill English) would net more then enough revenue to guarantee that the rest of us do not pay income tax or GST.

    • Rex Widerstrom 9.1

      A financial transaction tax was always, for me, one of the most attractive parts of Alliance policy.

      Have you (or anyone else) done any work on what level would be needed, and what level of land tax, to achieve the removal of GST and income tax, nzfp?

      Incidentally, why are you opposed to a consumption tax such as GST? I’d have thought it operated on the same broad philosophic principle as a FTT… i.e. those that spend the most (and thus presumably have the most) pay the most (broadly speaking)?

      • Quoth the Raven 9.1.1

        GST is regressive. Those that spend the most pay the most, but those that are on lower incomes spend a greater proportion of their income and thus with GST a greater proportion in tax.

      • mcflock 9.1.2

        The Alliance did some tax tables for the 2008 election, incl FTT.

        They figured a FTTof $0.02/$100 would gather enough tax to get rid of GST on food as a starting point (they reckoned roughly $2bil was minimum for FTT) and an anti-speculative land tax would gather about $450mil.

        http://www.alliance.org.nz/index.php/events-and-actions/general-election/alliance-party-proposed-budget/

        BTW, if only more parties would spell out exactly what they want to do…

      • nzfp 9.1.3

        Hi Rex,

        FTT
        The New Zealand Democrats for Social Credit have done a lot of work on FTT and Tobin Taxes. You can find their work here: http://www.democrats.org.nz/ This shouldn’t be a surprise for you as the Social Credit party of Bruce Betham merged with other minor political parties to foprm the Alliance Party. The Social Credit Party is now the New Zealand Democrats for Social Credit. However, there is nothing to stop other parties – whether Von Mises institute / Ayn Rand inspired Libertarians like the ACT or the ecologically responsible Greens or even Labour and National from inestigating these policies as well.

        Land Taxes
        I personally haven’t done the work required to calculate the land taxes required to offsett income tax. However you can listen to a very good one hour podcast specifically about the topic of land taxes in a 2009 interview on the Australian radio show “Renegade Economist” on the Australian “3CR” network titled Wendell Fitzgerald — “Conflict on Interest” on Renegade Economist, 3CR (Thursday, 27 August 2009)[1]. Bear in mind that the theory of rent was developed by English economist David Ricardo in his 1817 work On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation[2].

        If you want more reasons to implement a Land Tax, try listening to any of American economist Professor Michael Hudson’s interviews[3].

        [1] http://reformthemoney.blogspot.com/2010/04/wendell-fitzgerald-conflict-on-interest.html
        [2] http://www.econlib.org/library/Ricardo/ricP1a.html#Ch.2,%20On%20Rent
        [3] http://reformthemoney.blogspot.com/search/label/Michael%20Hudson

        GST
        I oppose a GST as it is an unfair tax on labour and the products of labour. The result of taxes on labour is to increase the price of products and services throughout the economy. However, the tax is unfairly distributed and hits the poor and middle classes the hardest – the result is a drop in purchasing power by the majority of NZ citizens, resulting in a drop in economic activity and a propensity for the consumption of cheap mass produced goods – typically from slave labour economies (China, Mexico) and cheap food resulting in poorer health and loss of manufacturing in NZ.

        Conversely a tax on land will only affect banks (capital) interest profits based on the free lunch of increasing land values and with a corresponding drop in GST and income tax the result will be a lowering of labour costs and an increased amount of purchasing power within the economy.

        In short I oppose a GST because it hurts the weakest amongst us most – a society is judged by how it treats the lest amongst them.

        Watch the documentary “Someone Else’s Country” (look in the navigation bar on the right of the Standard website) for a great overview of neo-liberal monetarist economics taken to their extreme.

        [lprent: Rescued from spam. How about reading the FAQ about how not to put naked links in. The spam engine doesn’t get nearly as excited over those. ]

        • Quoth the Raven 9.1.3.1

          As one of the aforementioned free market proponents I certainly support any reform to shift tax from income to land and any cuts to Labour’s attack on the poor (GST). I’m find myself quite sympathetic to georgist ideas, but I haven’t any firm convictions on “the land question”. I find your equating of neo-liberalism and the free market in your above comment very mistaken and I would never put libertarian and Act, a disgusting bunch of freedom hating conservatives, in the sames sentence. Have a look at The Myths of neo-liberal deregulation (in The New Left review of all places) and The Myth of the Minimalist State
          Free Market Ambiguities
          On taxes like GST Rothbard does a good treatment with a bit of myth busting: The Consumption Tax: A Critique also see his withering attack on Reagan: Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy

          • nzfp 9.1.3.1.1

            Hey Quoth the Raven,
            Don’t be offended by my “equating of neo-liberalism and the free market” in the same sentence. I don’t mean the classic definition of “free market” as defined by the classical economists Ricardo, Malthus, Smith, Marx and Mills. The classical economist definition of the “Free Market” was a market free of “unearned income” or the “Free Lunch”. However, modern neo-liberals define the “Free Market” as a market free of regulation, free to plunder, toll booths etc… etc… American economist Professor Michael Hudson best describes the two definitions of “Free Market” in a recent interview on the US radio program “Guns and Butter” on KPFA titled “Michael Hudson — The Way We Were and What We Are Becoming” (19minutes 30seconds)

            Michael Hudson — The Way We Were and What We Are Becoming
            “The Way We Were and What We Are Becoming” with financial economist and historian, Dr. Michael Hudson. We begin with an analysis of the continuing bailout of insurance giant AIG and Monday’s stock market selloff; price and debt deflation; the two sectors of the economy; two definitions of ‘free markets’; the classical economists; revolution from the right and the former Soviet states; the threat of war; IMF/World Bank resurgence; the dollar versus the euro; analogies to Rome, neo-feudalism.

            I suspect your definition is the former, while my intention in my previous comment was the later which I fear the classical definition has come to be mis-defined as.

            Your link to the “Myths of neo-liberal deregulation” certainly looks like a very good read. In response, if you are interested in the controversy of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the attempts by the former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission “Brooksley Born” to regulate over the counter derivatives and the consequent grief she suffered at the hands of former Goldman Sachs and US Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, former Fed Chairman “The Wizard” Alan Greenspan, and US Treasury pitball Laurence Summers, have a look at the PBS documentary “The Warning”

            In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

            As for Georgism, I must admit I have only recently been introduced to Henry George’s theories on land rent and I haven’t yet read any of his or other Georgist works. What I know to date came from an interview with an American Geo-nimist “Wendell Fitzgerald” on the Australian 3CR radio program “Renegade Economist” titled “Wendell Fitzgerald — “Conflict on Interest” on Renegade Economist, 3CR (Thursday, 27 August 2009)”

            Wendell Fitzgerald — “Conflict on Interest” on Renegade Economist, 3CR (Thursday, 27 August 2009)
            Conflict of Interest: An interview with the wise one Wendell Fitzgerald on the conflict that land owning MP’s and bankers face. Conflict of ‘interest’ has a whole new perspective for BANKERS. A special extra long (podcasters only) edition as we get to the core of the issue.

            Wendell Fitzgerald discusses the merits of land tax vs income tax and how a land tax – a tax on unearned income, a free ride – could remove the requirement for income, value added, sales or any other tax on earned income.

            To date, the best and most relevant (to New Zealand) description of the myths of neo-liberalism and the toll booth economy that I have found is the Alister Barry documentary “Someone Else’s Country: Film, 1996 (Documentary)” which you can find in the right hand navigation bar of the Standard website

            Someone Else’s Country looks critically at the radical economic changes implemented by the 1984 Labour Government – where privatisation of state assets was part of a wider agenda that sought to remake New Zealand as a model free market state. The trickle-down ‘Rogernomics’ rhetoric warned of no gain without pain, and here the theory is counterpointed by the social effects (redundant workers, Post Office closures). Made by Alister Barry in 1996 when the effects were raw, the film draws extensively on archive footage and interviews with key “witnesses to history’.

            If you have any other suggestions – book, pamphlet, podcast, interview or documentary – I would be interested in watching, listening to or reading them.

            peace

            • Quoth the Raven 9.1.3.1.1.1

              I suggest anything by Kevin Carson. Try this and this. And check out the articles at ALL. As to my thoughts on the free market it’s actually more both than the latter or the former.

              • nzfp

                Lew Rockwell was interviewed recently by Scott Horton on Antiwar Radio

                Lew Rockwell, founder and Chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, discusses Ron Paul’s ability to explain and popularize libertarian ideas, the large number of Americans seething about the economy, how William F. Buckley, Jr. spearheaded the purging of antiwar rightists from the Conservative movement (and how Ron Paul is putting them back in) and how the hidden inflation tax allows the government to fund wars and avoid popular outrage.

                MP3 here. (27:50)

            • jimmy 9.1.3.1.1.2

              For some especially good history of neoliberalism (alot coming from the horses mouth, e.g. John Nash) “The Trap” by Adam Curtis is mindblowing. You can find it on documentary-log .

          • nzfp 9.1.3.1.2

            What do you think of the Austrian school of economics? How do you define money and credit?

            • Quoth the Raven 9.1.3.1.2.1

              I’m very interested in their ideas. They did see the recession coming and Mises did predict the great depression. I’m slowly learning about them. I think actually they’d probably be right about money and credit as opposed to what they’d call “money crankism” that some mutualists (see above links) ascribe to and their attacks on Keynesianism are I believe devastating.

              • nzfp

                The reason I ask about money and credit is because at the moment, the definition of money and credit is probably the only thing I’ve struggled to find agreement with the Austrians on. I admit I have a lot to learn, however I like Aristotles definition of money:

                … Money exists not by nature but by law.
                Aristotle (Ethics, 1133)

                Whereas most Austrians I’ve read or listened to tend to monetise commodities (gold, silver etc…) which I believe is dangerous as it allows those in control of gold, silver etc… to control the money.

                Consider the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) recently announced that they had evidence to prove that the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) the London “physical market” is actually trading a hundred times more paper gold than there is physical metal to back those trades. For a fascinating description of a fraud estimated to be over five Trillion USD, listen to the recent interview on KingWorldNews featuring Bill Murphy, Chris Powell & Adrian Douglas titled “Whistleblower Exposes JP Morgan’s Silver Manipulation Scheme”

                Part 1: Whistleblower Exposes JP Morgan’s Silver Manipulation Scheme. Andrew Maguire & Adrian Douglas: Discuss What Could Be the Largest Fraud in History – Andrew is an independent metals trader turned whistleblower at the center of a storm for exposing what could be the largest fraud in history involving countries, banks and government leaders. Adrian Douglas Board of Director from GATA, the man who Andrew reached out to joins in this interview where they discuss a fraud so extraordinary and so unimaginable that it is the kind of thing that only happens in hollywood thrillers. They also discuss the CFTC sponsored meeting on metals which was an unmitigated disaster because it additionally exposed the fraud on a grander scale.

                Part 2: Whistleblower Exposes JP Morgan’s Silver Manipulation Scheme. GATA: Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee – In this interview with GATA we continue the saga after just having interviewed Andrew Maguire, the whistleblower out of London. This gives a short and long-term view down the rabbit hole through the eyes of GATA board members. GATA was so heavily involved not only in breaking the news at the CFTC meeting about metals manipulation but quite possibly uncovered the largest fraud in history. This GATA Roundtable features Bill Murphy, Chris Powell & Adrian Douglas.

              • Quoth the Raven

                I have a lot to learn in that area as well. Money as it exists now as fiat money exists by law. Some medium of exchange I think is natural to a market economy and there are very good reasons why historically gold and silver were that medium of exchange. In contrast fiat money seems an absurdity. Gold is overwhelmingly controlled by states. Gold held by investors is a mere fraction of that held by central banks. The central bank-fiat money-fractional reserve system that has developed strikes me as very dangerous. I believe the Austrians may well be right in that it creates the dangerous credit bubbles and leads to the business cycles. Not to mention inflationary policies of central banks that eats away at worker’s savings and wages.

              • nzfp

                Hey QTR,
                Well it all depends on whether or not you trust the government – or rather – whether or not you believe that we can form a trustworthy government. Bear in mind that todays neo-liberal monetarist societies are not demoratic as the control of money is entirely in the hands of a small number of elites – typically foreign banks. Our money supply is created by banks for banks. While it is true that we have a fiat system – the quantity of money is not dictated by our government but by the monetarist policies of the reserve bank and the loans generated primarily against land by the private commercial (mainly Australian) banks, remember that gold and silver can be fiat money systems too. The Austrians as well as other economic schools stress the importance of the government controlling the quantity of money – economic democracy – and not private banks. In the case of Austrians it is in the form of precious metal money. However as demonstrated private interests do control precious metals and we are back where we started. Hence the comment I made earlier referencing Aristotle and his “nomisma” fiat money.

                Have you ever heard of Stephen Zarlenga and the American Monetary Institute? Have a listen to three interviews Zarlenga did with Jan Irvin of GnosticMedia. Zarlenga criticises the Austrian school in his second interview and responds to criticism from the Austrians in his third interview. Despite the criticism, the comments from both the Austrians and the AMI were mostly in agreement and a debate between the two would be worthwhile.

                To listen to the interviews see below:

                Part 1: Stephen Zarlenga — Money’s Dirty Little Secrets

                Part 1: One of the factions that controls nearly every moment of our lives is hardly understood by the large majority of the population. To gain an understanding of today’s topic deepens our understanding of the world and how it works and exactly what we can do to effect change when and where needed.

                Our deepening investigation into the freedom of consciousness cannot go without a deeper understanding of what we all use for exchange or trade – money.

                Exactly how we define the word ‘money’ defines our very society and affects nearly every facet of our lives. It also tells us exactly what we can expect from our political representatives. All we need is to understand the language of money.

                Part 2: Stephen Zarlenga — Why Gold and Silver are Not the Answer

                Part 2: This show is being released on Monday, the Solstice, December 21, 2009. My interview with Stephen Zarlenga was recorded on Dec. 15, 2009.

                This is part 2 of our series with Stephen Zarlenga where we look deep into the fundamental concepts of money: What is money and how is it defined? What is the difference between money and credit? What is the history of money? How does it tie to religion, government and private business? Is nationalizing the money system socialist, and does this concept of money ignore “the libertarian issue”? What is FIAT money? Is there a difference between private versus nationalized banks and how they operate? Has there ever been a society on the gold standard that did not fall to slavery or serfdom? And why is any of this important for YOU to understand, and how could it possibly affect YOUR life?

                Part 3: Stephen Zarlenga — A Response to the Austrian School

                Part 3: This show is being released on Monday, March 01, 2010. My interview with Steve Zarlenga was recorded on February 23, 2010.

                Stephen Zarlenga of the American Monetary Institute has become a regular guest on the Gnostic Media program, and we love having him on. After our series that we completed a few months ago, some people from the Austrian school of economics were upset about the interviews with Stephen, and one of them wrote a long article that was posted to the Ludwig von Mises Institute website (http://mises.org/daily/4102) of the Austrian school attacking Stephen and the interview.

                Stephen returns for our 3rd interview together for his critical rejoinder to the Ludwig von Mises Institute website article by Kaj Grüssner. Whether your an economist or not, this is another interview you that won’t want to miss.

              • Quoth the Raven

                Well it all depends on whether or not you trust the government or rather whether or not you believe that we can form a trustworthy government.

                I don’t 🙂

                Our money supply is created by banks for banks. While it is true that we have a fiat system the quantity of money is not dictated by our government but by the monetarist policies of the reserve bank and the loans generated primarily against land by the private commercial (mainly Australian) banks, remember that gold and silver can be fiat money systems too.

                Our money supply is created by the state. The banks certainly do benefit from that. Central banks are the bankers banks and it is central banks that allow our current banking system to continue. It’s hard to escape that fact. Whether gold and silver can be fiat money systems depends on how you define fiat money. Some would not call a currency backed by something, like Gold, and convertible to that fiat money.

                The Austrians as well as other economic schools stress the importance of the government controlling the quantity of money economic democracy and not private banks.

                That depends on the Austrian. Some would like to see central banks abolished and legal tender laws repealed. Mises.org is down right now, but there are many writings by Rothbard on the topic. The mystery of banking and What has the government done to our money spring to mind.

              • nzfp

                Hey QTR,
                Our government only creates the notes and coins (M1) which represents less then 2% of the total money supply. The rest is created by the Banks primarily against mortgages.

                For example did you know that the RBNZ C1 Monetary aggregates estimates that 98% of the money in our economy is created out of thin air by private mostly foreign (Australian) banks as loans with the majority of those loans – as suggested by the C7 Sectoral analysis of outstanding NZD claims: registered banks – are against mortgages (both private and commercial). Those loans must be paid back with interest. That means that if an Australian owned bank grants a mortgage of $100,000 they simply create that money out of thin air and enter it into an account and immediately start charging interest on it. This mortage at 5% over 30 years requires a repayment to the private (Australian) bank of $193,255.78. This means the bank gets $193,255.78 or your house at no risk because they create the money from nothing at all and then sit back and wait for the real money (debt) to roll in.

                I know you don’t trust government – so maybe you should stand for election or get involved with a political party that promotes economic democracy and monetary reform.

              • nzfp

                Oops when I said

                The Austrians as well as other economic schools stress the importance of the government controlling the quantity of money

                I should have said

                The Austrians as well as other economic schools stress the importance of public control over the quantity of money

                L Frank Baums books beginning with “The Wizard of Oz” were all metaphors for the struggle between the Public and the Banks control over US money when the Banks wanted a gold standard while the public wanted free silver as well as gold (yellow brick road). The Banks won and the gold standard was imposed, the result was the greatest depression in US history – worse then the “Great” depression.

                See “The Secret of Oz” and read Ellen Hodgson Browns “The Web of Debt”

              • Quoth the Raven

                NZFP – That’s because of the fractional reserve banking system. A system that simply couldn’t operate without their bankers the central banks. Rothbard explains the fractional reserve banking system here.

                Let’s assume that the Fed buys $10,000,000 of US Treasury bills from some “approved” government bond dealer (a small group), say Shearson Lehman on Wall Street. The Fed writes out a check for $10,000,000, which it gives to Shearson Lehman in exchange for $10,000,000 in US securities. Where does the Fed get the $10,000,000 to pay Shearson Lehman? It creates the money out of thin air. Shearson Lehman can do only one thing with the check: deposit it in its checking account at a commercial bank, say Chase Manhattan. The “money supply” of the country has already increased by $10,000,000; no one else’s checking account has decreased at all. There has been a net increase of $10,000,000.

                But this is only the beginning of the inflationary counterfeiting process. For Chase Manhattan is delighted to get a check on the Fed, and rushes down to deposit it in its own checking account at the Fed, which now increases by $10,000,000. But this checking account constitutes the “reserves” of the banks, which have now increased across the nation by $10,000,000. But this means that Chase Manhattan can create deposits based on these reserves, and that, as checks and reserves seep out to other banks (much as the Rothbard Bank deposits did), each one can add its inflationary mite, until the banking system as a whole has increased its demand deposits by $100,000,000, ten times the original purchase of assets by the Fed. The banking system is allowed to keep reserves amounting to 10 percent of its deposits, which means that the “money multiplier” — the amount of deposits the banks can expand on top of reserves — is 10. A purchase of assets of $10 million by the Fed has generated very quickly a tenfold ($100,000,000) increase in the money supply of the banking system as a whole.

                Interestingly, all economists agree on the mechanics of this process even though they of course disagree sharply on the moral or economic evaluation of that process. But unfortunately, the general public, not inducted into the mysteries of banking, still persists in thinking that their money remains “in the bank.”

                Thus, the Federal Reserve and other central banking systems act as giant government creators and enforcers of a banking cartel

              • nzfp

                Hey QTR,
                You have to [insert humourous and obviously sarcastic voice here] “love” the Fractional Reserve Banking system. Rothbard paints a nice portrait of the fraud – now if only we could get our teachers to teach this in Primary School so that our nations children would grow up knowing and understanding just how fraudulent this practice is.

                I’ve just finished posting an example of a solution to the Fractional Reserve system – supported by none other then our favourite neo-liberal Chicago School Nobel laureat economist Milton Friedman – in response to a report “John Key to slash public services” by Michael Foxglove. You can find my response and solution here: 22 April 2010 at 9:47 pm. Come on over and join the discussion.

        • Rex Widerstrom 9.1.3.2

          Just wanted to say thanks for such an informative response nzfp. Will follow all those links during the gaps I manage to create in my mountain of work. Ka pai.

          • nzfp 9.1.3.2.1

            Kei te pai e hoa!

            The more people who are aware of the potential of genuine monetary reform the better.

  10. john 10

    John Key’s overseeing the Ponzi scheme which benefits the rich; wealth continues to trickle up and be privatized( Try unprivatizing it later ! It’d take a revolution,they count on that).Probably part of his National Party job description. There are still public assets to be colonised for profit, especially now as the private sector has fallen flat on its greedy face, re: All those failed finance Companies,billions down the drain. But Public assets are still viable boys! “Meat’s back on the menu lads”!

    • Jared 10.1

      Theres a difference between tax avoidance and tax minimisation. This is a clear example of tax avoidance and the IRD should come down heavy on him.
      Still, im not quite sure you understand the correct prose you are trying to utilise. A ponzi scam infers there is no scheme to make money and that you are paying out to members with new income you receive. Also, you mention wealth being privatized (we use british english not american english) it is privatised, but im not sure how wealth can be “privatised”? How can assets be “colonised” surely you mean privatised? Anyway, how did you suddenly segway onto public assets? the OP was talking about taxation and avoidance, not privatising assets….

      • felix 10.1.1

        Seeing as you’ve appointed yourself spelling and language dick I feel I should point out that that’s not what “infers” means.

        The word you’re looking for is “implies”.

  11. Tom 11

    What’s all the fuss about? If the guy owes tax and IRD make him pay it, plus penalties, what’s the problem? Didn’t the big Aussie banks try to rip off the taxpayer for a billion or so, and they had to pay up?

    • Bright Red 11.1

      Are you saying that someone who has done wrong shouldn’t be criticised as long as they are being dealt with by the authorities?

      he hasn’t done anything wrong as long as he eventually is forced to pay up?

      I’ll remember that next time you’re having a spaz about convicted criminals.

  12. vto 12

    Mr Zet, do your same mores and abuse lines apply to;

    poor working people who make extra dollars and don’t declare it? (trademe trading, whitebaiting, etc); or,

    middle class labour voters who fail to declare the profit they have made on the sale of their rental property, claiming they bought the property for the rental income and not the capital gain? (ha ha what a joke. biggest rort in the land); or,

    small business owners who lump their entire cellphone bill onto their expenses when a portion of it is personal use; or,

    the tradesman who does a cash job; or,

    is it only rich pricks?

    you sound like Cullen.

    • Bright Red 12.1

      you don’t have to pay tax if you catch waitbait whitebait and eat it yourself any more than you have to pay tax on tomatoes you grow yourself or blackberries you pick on public land. If you sell it, that’s different.

      All the rest are examples of people acting illegally and ripping off honest taxpayers. Are you ok with what Hardie has done, vto?

      Because I don’t see any one on the left trying to defend people in your examples. I only see you trying to make equivocate for a man who is trying to steal $10 million from the rest of us.

      [lprent: ‘waitbait’, surely not – sounds like a 100 dollar bill on a string. Changing..]

  13. tsmithfield 13

    What I find incredible is this guy has, pretty much off his own bat, generated millions for the economy. If he manages to get some back, then good on him. He should get a medal rather than be criticised.

    • Bright Red 13.1

      he stole ten million dollars, he stole that from everyone, including you.

      You’re pathetic, ts. You would be baying for blood if this guy was some young kid who had stolen a couple of laptops. But because you think he must be some Randian hero you just kneel down and ask him to screw you over.

      And who says he generated millions for the economy, let alone ‘off his own bat’?

      You don’t seriously think that the money people have reflects the wealth they create do you? Jesus, even simple economic theory tells you that’s not true. Wages, for example, are determined by the supply and demand for the particular class of labour, not the wealth produced by that labour.

  14. big bruv 14

    “he stole ten million dollars, he stole that from everyone, including you.”

    I am struggling to remember such faux outrage when Cullen stole nearly a billion dollars of our money and blew the lot on a worthless train set, likewise, I do not remember any protests when Labour stole tax payer money to spend on a pledge card that was later deemed to be illegal.

    If you guys are not going to deal in facts at least try and not be so hypocritical.

  15. tsmithfield 15

    BR “he stole ten million dollars, he stole that from everyone, including you.”

    I assume he is actually going to have to pay this. Therefore, he will be generating millions for the economy. Sure, he’s chosen a rather convoluted route to do it. But it does show how much the wealthy contribute to society financially. They’re not just rich pricks. They’re rich pricks we can’t afford to be without.

    • Bright Red 15.1

      “I assume he is actually going to have to pay this. Therefore, he will be generating millions for the economy”

      That’s not how wealth works, ts. The wealth exists. It’s ours and he has it. That’s called theft. Him giving us the moeny he has stolen does not create new wealth.

      “They’re rich pricks we can’t afford to be without.”

      the wealth would exist without them. It would be shared amongst the rest of us.

      They’re not supermen who magically create wealth out of thin air, whom we should be grateful to ride of the coat-tails of.

      they are the elite in a hierarchical economy. and liek all elites throughout history they control the means of production and they use this apex position to secure for themselves the lion’s share of the wealth produced. (it’s not the individual that is evil, by and large, they are behaving rationally in an unjust system)

    • Draco T Bastard 15.2

      Actually, they’re rich pricks we can’t afford to keep.

      it’s not the individual that is evil, by and large,

      Actually, quite often it is. The majority of people in the “elite” happen to be psychopaths.

    • Pascal's bookie 15.3

      Reminds me of a comment form a recent crooked timber thread.

      ” : the lab rats of comments threads. Because there’s some arguments even a rat won’t make with straight whiskers.’

    • logie97 15.4

      while you’re on about rich pricks and their generating wealth for NZILD. How much of the PM’s wealth sits in foreign investment and never touches these shores? Where do the knights of the round table keep their wealth – not here in NZ? Swiss banks probably.

  16. tsmithfield 16

    I fail to see how you can call this guy a bludger.

    A bludger is someone who unfairly relies on other people to support them. I assume hes not drawing from the tax-payer at all, given that he would be able to afford to fund his own lifestyle. Therefore, he is no more a bludger than people who pay no net tax due to receiving more back in family support and the like than they pay out in tax.

    • Bright Red 16.1

      “I assume hes not drawing from the tax-payer at all”

      Yes he is. he’s drawn $10 million from us, sucker. I pay my taxes, I’m assuming you do, this guy doesn’t pay his share as determined by the democratically elected government but he gets the benefits. Bludger.

    • He’s unfairly relying on me and four million others to the tune of ten million bucks, TS. I don’t just want him to pay tax, I want him jailed. In fact, where are the Senseless Sentencing Trust on this be-suited burglar? I’m prepared to be a weeping victim on the telly if they want to whip up some outrage.

  17. Descendant Of Smith 17

    He’s a lawyer. He didn’t generate anything. Lawyers take money for giving advice.

    He hasn’t built anything or manufactured anything. His clients might but he hasn’t.

    Being a patent lawyer I could also argue that he helps maintain a monopolistic system where knowledge is not shared and is left in the hands of he who discovers (or sometimes patents) it first. Patents are an important part of maintaining the current system and keeping prices at an artificially high level and in preventing competition.

    And for those people who continually refer to DPB’s etc as bludgers. Isn’t that their legal entitlement.

    And if he’s not paying his legally obliged tax then he is a bludger cause it’s my taxes paying for his roads, his medical costs, his public services, his education, his children’s education, the fire service, the police and so on.

    I’m actually quite happy to pay my tax based on what I earn. I’m quite happy to pay more if I earn more and I’m quite happy for people on low incomes to pay less tax.

    I don’t earn millions and I have no desire to do so.

    Funnily enough I’m still married and nearly all my mates who went off chasing the big bucks are not. Several have gone broke and a couple have committed suicide. Different values different results. Not as simple as cause and effect I know but I’m happy with the choices I made and quite content.

  18. ghostwhowalksnz 18

    Check out his website
    http://www.jdhardie.co.nz/

    Looks like he is a ‘car boot’ patent lawyer

  19. Descendant Of Smith 19

    The right are fond of rewriting definitions. I remember when staff became Human Resources – ostensibly to stop their senior managers committing suicide as they laid off masses of staff. Dehumanising them through the language change made those decisions much more palatable.

    I’m sure our mate above fits one of these definitions: I think it’s called avoiding responsibility and living off others.

    Collins English Dictionary
    bludger
    n (Austral. and N.Z.)
    informal
    1 a person who scrounges
    2 a person who avoids work
    3 a person in authority regarded as ineffectual by those working under him
    Merriam-Webster

    Main Entry: bludge
    Pronunciation: \ˈbləj\
    Function: verb
    Inflected Form(s): bludged; bludg·ing
    Etymology: back-formation from British argot bludger pimp, probably contraction of bludgeoner one wielding a bludgeon, from bludgeon
    Date: circa 1919

    intransitive verb 1 chiefly Australian & New Zealand : to avoid work or responsibility
    2 chiefly Australian & New Zealand : sponge

    Sponge:
    3 : one who lives on others

  20. tsmithfield 20

    DOS ,I agree with the definition of “bludger” as “living off others” as stated above.

    That means that you must agree that all people on welfare meet that definition of “bludgers” since they, by definition, are living off others. However, someone who doesn’t pay taxes but is NOT relying on other tax-payers to support them, is not bludging. They are not contributing to the system. But they cannot be said to be bludging.

    • Bill 20.1

      Hospitals, roads, police, electricity and water infrastructure…this guy live in a cave? Reject anything that at any time had state funded R&D applied to it? Send away anything that arrives by road? Or ferry? Or rail? Reject all contact with and use of any and all companies that were state owned at one time or another…ie built up by use of tax paid…such as telecom and so on?

      If not, then they are a bludger.

      All bosses live off others. Just saying.

      Ironically, beneficiaries contribute to the wealth of those bastards by inadvertently applying a downward pressure on wages…so bosses even live off the backs of beneficiaries.

      But lets not call them bludgers. Leeches? No. Leeches have a use.

      But every boss heaving and pushing, head up the arse of the superior…an uncertain tower of shit stained personal achievements. What should we call such a collection of humanity?

    • “DOS ,I agree with the definition of “bludger’ as “living off others’ as stated above.”

      Except that definition was not stated above. DOS said it was “avoiding responsibility and living off others.” A perfect snapshot of your lawyer mate.

      Your last 3 sentences about a mythical person who doesn’t pay taxes and is not relying on society to support them makes no sense, unless you are talking about the dead. The living are constantly supported by society in most aspects of their lives, no matter how rich they are. Hospitals, schools, roads, telephony, tv, internet, water, the list goes on.

  21. Descendant Of Smith 21

    Firstly most have contributed to the system as most have worked at some point in their lives. The numbers currently on benefit do not reflect the churn through. The system does not pay the benefit while they are working but only for the periods they are not.

    The system itself is designed in that way so it is disingenuous to be that simplistic and convey that all on benefit are bludgers. With DPB in particular some of the cost is met by liable parents so the total cost is not being met by the tax payer. In a lot of cases the bludger therefore would be the self employed businessman who has nil personal income and makes no contribution to his children’s benefit cost. I hope you treat them with special disdain.

    Secondly they are getting their legal entitlements that society has decreed they can get. This is oft argued by the right for justifying tax minimisation. I can’t believe you would want different rules to apply to other people.

    Thirdly you do also disregard the supply side – is there work available?

    Fourthly by your definition no doubt you consider all super annuitants as bludgers cause they make no contribution except for the less than 5% who have additional income – or are you trying to justify different rules for them by recognising their past tax contribution.

    Lastly if there are some genuine bludgers – and I have no doubt that there are some then that surely is an administrative or fraud issue. Tarring the majority with the actions of a small minority is not the world I want to live in.

    No doubt the 200 highly skilled managers from Telecom won’t be applying for benefits cause there are plenty of jobs for them elsewhere.

    What I do know is that the gentleman above has no legal right to not pay his tax and he clearly meets the definition of not meeting his responsibilities.

  22. tsmithfield 22

    Bill “Hospitals, roads, police, electricity and water infrastructure this guy live in a cave?”

    I still don’t think Hardie could be qualified as a bludger. Even if he totally avoided paying a cent in income tax, he would probably pay more in GST each year for funding his lifestyle than most workers would ever pay in tax. Thus, he would be covering his share of roading, electricity etc as much if not more than most others, even from his GST bill alone. Plus he may well fund his own private hospital bills, send his kids to private schools rather than “bludging” off the state ones etc.

    So, you still haven’t convinced me he qualifies as a bludger by any definition.

    There are plenty of people who do meet the definitions above though.

    • Armchair Critic 22.1

      And thus the battle of semantics continued….
      Tell me ts, which of these two options more accurately describes Mr Hardie:
      (a) tax cheat, or
      (b) saint?
      I’m picking (a). And since I don’t support tax cheats, I’m going to run with the “Mr Hardie doesn’t need me to stick up for him” school of thought.
      If you think being a tax cheat is such a wonderful thing (your comments seem to be heading that way), can I commend to you the idea of not paying your income tax, too, in support of Mr Hardie’s stance. It would make a stronger statement than the faint praise of your “he’s not a bludger” comments. And best of luck with getting a judge to believe that paying lots of GST makes up for it.
      Actually, I expect he ran most of his expenses through a company and claimed the GST back.

      • Marty G 22.1.1

        “Tell me ts, which of these two options more accurately describes Mr Hardie:
        (a) tax cheat, or
        (b) saint?”

        reminds me of this:

        Lawyer: Mr Griffin, which of the following two phrases best describes Brian Griffin: Problem Drinker or African-American Haberdasher?
        Peter: Uh, do I-I guess problem drinker, but that’s uh-
        Lawyer: Thank-you. Now: Sexual deviant or magic picture that if you stare at it long enough, you see something?
        Peter: Well, sexual deviant, but that other one’s not even, eh-
        Lawyer: Thank-you

        • Armchair Critic 22.1.1.1

          Yeah, fair call. Apologies, ts.
          Marty, my point was really that ts’s apparent support for a tax cheat doesn’t is, IMO, unnecessary and undeserved..

          • Marty G 22.1.1.1.1

            nah, it just reminded me in a funny way.

            was a classic false dichotomy, but that’s for the other side of the argument to work out 🙂

        • Daveosaurus 22.1.1.2

          I must try to remember this the next time I’m tempted to waste time arguing with a troofer.

  23. Descendant Of Smith 23

    Ummm most private schools get state funding and even more so under this government and when he has his heart attack / stroke / car accident and numerous other options he won’t be going private cause they can’t do that sort of operation. When his plastic surgery gets ballsed up by the private hospital it will most likely get fixed in public – Middlemore does plenty of those. When he visits his GP he claims back only the non-state paid cost of his visit not the full cost.

    When his kids go to university most of the cost will be met by the state – I know cause the PM said so.

  24. BevanJS 24

    Pedantic possibly but I’d hardly be alone on this thread, roading is essentially user pays yeh? i.e. revenue generated even contributes to the rest of the “public spend”.

    • Marty G 24.1

      nowadays there’s generally some money from general taxation to roading as well.

      And, yup, pretty pedantic even by my standards 😉

  25. tsmithfield 25

    It just strikes me that most of you have a weird concept of what a bludger is.

    You are accusing Hardie of being a bludger. Yet all he seems to be trying to do is prevent others from bludging of him.

    • Marty G 25.1

      so basically, you support criminals who don’t pay their taxes.

      Tell me, ts, if I didn’t pay my tax would you support me?

      What if a beneficiary didn’t pay their tax? And this beneficiary is no ‘bludger’ by any other measure, they’re seriously disabled and can’t work, but are they a bludger for dodging the tax that everyone else has to pay?

      Basically, ts, you think there should be one law for us and one law for the rich, whom you think create wealth and jobs out of thin air with the power of their minds.

  26. tsmithfield 26

    I haven’t made any comment about whether I think he should pay his taxes or not. In fact I think he should. Otherwise he is likely to end up in jail or bankrupt.

    But, yes, I do object to paying taxes when most of it gets pissed against the wall by governments who don’t know what they’re doing, especially when approx half of all income in NZ goes in taxes in one way or another. If I felt I was getting value for money, I wouldn’t mind so much. I deplore anyone acting in an illegal way to avoid taxes. However, if they are able to avoid taxes legally, then good on them.

    And, before you get too moralistic about it, Marty, I bet you’d be in boots and all if your accountant told you there was a completely legal opportunity to reduce your tax bill by 30%.

    • Marty G 26.1

      accountant?

      mate, in the real world, we go to jobs and the tax gets taken off in PAYE. Tax avoidance, like tax evasion, is a rich man’s game.

      and i’d love to see you identify $30 billion of govt spending that is just ‘pissed against the wall’. but that’ll have to wait for morning.

      • tsmithfield 26.1.1

        Not a rich mans game. Its available to anyone self-employed who has got a good accountant.

        Let me make it clear:

        If you set up schemes specifically to avoid tax, you’re a fool.
        If you try to stretch or interpret the rules in novel ways, you’re a fool.

        Good accountants apply tax laws in a way that is clearly within the rules and thus not open to challenge to get advantage for their clients. The current advantages for landlords for example. This is the problem with a highly complex tax system. When ever rules are changed to close one loophole, another eventually opens.

        BTW, the money wasted in our railway investment at a highly inflated price is just one example of money being pissed away IMO.

  27. Cnr Joe 27

    This tstrawberryfields strain of thought is absurd – ‘If I felt I was getting value for money, I wouldn’t mind so much…(paying taxes)
    It must be such a strain to have to be a member of this fairly honourable and supportive – fair-minded – democratic society – this very fortunate country, this reasonably generous and caring national community.
    Pay your taxes, insist everyone does likewise, carry on, have a good day and you need any help just ask, we’re all here to help. Even Paula Bennett would give a struggling mother with 4 screaming kids a hand in the supermarket if she was there…. (purely hypothetical but conceived a in a generous state of mind)
    captcha – lot

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago