Open mike 20/05/2023

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 20th, 2023 - 146 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

146 comments on “Open mike 20/05/2023 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • Patricia Bremner 1.1
      20 May 2023 at 5:54 pm

      Yes Barfly, our chess player son is sad as well. A complete shock.yes

  2. Bearded Git 2
    20 May 2023 at 11:04 am

    I don't know if others have already commented on this, but it is brave and wonderful that in the budget the tax rate for trusts was raised from 33% to 39%, the same as the top income tax rate, to fix the rort/anomaly where trustees used trusts to only pay 33%.

    Luxon will doubtless change this back-Standard readers need watch for the Nats policy position on this.

    • Phillip ure 2.1
      20 May 2023 at 11:21 am

      Agreed that is a positive takeaway from the budget…but it only addresses one part of the trust tax-evasion problem..

      The operation of those trusts needs to be more transparent…

    • weka 2.2
      20 May 2023 at 11:42 am

      is that income tax?

      • Cricklewood 2.2.1
        20 May 2023 at 12:06 pm

        Trust income, in short if you found yourself in the 39c tax bracket you would once you reached it put the money into a trust which would pay 33c. For it to be a worthwhile work around you needed to earn 300k and up

        • weka 2.2.1.1
          20 May 2023 at 12:12 pm

          so people whose assets are in a trust, and are earning income from that, but whose income would otherwise be in a lower tax bracket, will pay 39% on the trust income?

          • Cricklewood 2.2.1.1.1
            20 May 2023 at 1:00 pm

            Yes unless they disperse the income from the trust in which case it will be paid at the recipients nominal tax rate.

            • weka 2.2.1.1.1.1
              20 May 2023 at 1:07 pm

              ok, that makes more sense. So people who have a trust but aren't high inome earners, and who aren't trying to rort the system, can just take out the income each year and pay their normal tax on that rather than the 39%.

              • Liberty Belle …
                20 May 2023 at 1:58 pm

                There is no 'rort'. Beneficiaries don't benefit from a different tax rate in the trust because as soon as they are paid a distribution, their personal tax rate kicks in.

                • weka …
                  20 May 2023 at 2:05 pm

                  so are Cricklewood and BG wrong when they say that the income being earned by the trust was being taxed at 33% but if it was personal income wealthy people would be paying 39%?

                  In the next financial year income coming into the trust will be taxed at 39%. Are you saying that if that stays in the trust until the following year but then is paid out that the beneficiary gets a rebate (assuming they pay less than 39%)?

                  • LibertyBelle …
                    20 May 2023 at 6:39 pm

                    In answer to question 1, ultimately what beneficiaries pay comes down to the nature of the distribution and the personal tax rate of the beneficiaries.

                    Increasing the trust tax rate to 39% is meaningless, because trustees will simply distribute all profits in the year they are earned (as most do now), and beneficiaries will pay whatever they pay, somewhere between 39% and zip.

                • mikesh …
                  20 May 2023 at 2:13 pm

                  It can be a rort. Parents who don’t have a trust have to meet the cost of their child's upkeep from their own income. With a trust, however, a child beneficiary's upkeep cost can be recovered from the trust, saving the parents a fair bit of money.

                  It would be useful to have legislation making it illegal to pass income to a child (or to anybody for that matter), through the use of a trust, without good reason.

                  • weka …
                    20 May 2023 at 5:44 pm

                    how does that save the parents money?

                  • LibertyBelle …
                    20 May 2023 at 6:27 pm
                    1. Any parent can set up a trust. It isn’t magic.

                    2. School Fees paid by a trust are distributions to the beneficiaries, and so attract the recipients rate of income tax.

                    3. Funds used to establish a trust have already been subject to the individuals rate of income tax.

                    there is no rort.

                  • Bearded Git …
                    20 May 2023 at 7:13 pm

                    I have friends who set up a trust so that they could hide income so that they could claim working for families. My understanding is that this is a widespread rort

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      20 May 2023 at 8:10 pm

                      If they are beneficiaries of the trust, the IRD will cut straight through the trust and effectively void the transactions. It’s the same scenario as gifting to avoid the cost of rest home care.

                    • weka …
                      20 May 2023 at 9:04 pm

                      a lot of that stuff got tightened up ages ago.

                • Drowsy M. Kram …
                  20 May 2023 at 9:10 pm

                  Trustee tax increase 'is response to spike in trust use to avoid tax' [May 18 2023]

                  No rorts, of course – just an example of NZ punching above its weight.

                  Trust that Trust [October 2021; PDF]
                  A Practical Guide to Family Trusts in New Zealand
                  Australasia is known to have a love affair with trusts. It is thought that New Zealand has the most number of trusts per capita of any country in the world – approximately one for every 10-15 people. Accordingly, they are integral to the fabric of not only our economy, but also of our society and have many uses as we will see.

                  Too much of a 'good' thing?

                  The Panama Papers New Zealand link revealed [6 May 2016]
                  New details from the Panama Papers show how a stream of foreign cash became a torrent flooding into New Zealand trusts in order to avoid tax offshore.

                  New Zealand, foreign trusts and the Panama papers
                  [8 September 2016]
                  These reports are of great concern to both the New Zealand Government and the IRD. There is little consolation for the IRD in the statements made by Prime Minister John Key and Revenue Minister Michael Woodhouse, that the OECD had looked at the New Zealand foreign trust rules in the past and had found no concerns.

                  Interestingly, in a radio interview, Gerard Ryle, a director of ICIJ reportedly stated that he had been looking at the issue of tax havens for years and New Zealand was known to be a “really soft touch”. When asked about his thought on the New Zealand Government ministers’ statements that the country was not a tax haven, Mr Ryle stated that that this was “rubbish”.

                  Is NZ a tax haven for the rich and dodgy? The Pandora Papers reignite the debate [6 October 2021]
                  Five years ago, New Zealand was rocked by a document dump which revealed the country played an important role in a money-go-round of tax evasion and money laundering used by the world’s rich and famous and the corrupt and criminal. The Panama Papers outed New Zealand as something of (if technically not quite) a tax haven and led to rapid reform of our foreign trust laws in 2017.

                  But this week, a far larger leak in the Pandora Papers has again raised questions about whether the country remains a dirty cog in the global engine of money laundering and tax evasion and if those reforms went far enough.

                  • Liberty Belle …
                    20 May 2023 at 9:15 pm

                    Re David Parker's claims – https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20-05-2023/#comment-1950631

                    Re the rest of it – you need to read up on foreign trusts. A clue is found in your last reference and talks about the criteria for a foreign trust only being tax free when neither the settlor nor beneficiaries lived, or derived income from New Zealand.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      20 May 2023 at 10:50 pm

                      For a few wealthy Kiwis, tax avoidance is a way of life. Sad, if you really think about it – maybe it gives them some small pleasure?

                      Simon Wilson: Tax avoidance is the ram-raiding of the uber-rich [8 May 2023; premium article]
                      For a whole day or two last month, sanity prevailed. We discovered the wealthiest among us pay, on average, less than 10 per cent tax on their income, while the rest of us pay more than 20 per cent. There was widespread shock.

                      There are no ifs, buts or extenuating circumstances about this. It’s wrong. Equity should be a fundamental premise of any tax system: everybody should pay their fair share.

                      Christchurch builder sentenced for $300,000 tax evasion [24 January 2023]
                      A builder caught evading more than $300,000 in tax that he deducted from his employees' wages, spent some of the money on Uber Eats and overseas travel.
                      …
                      The judge arrived at an end sentence of 12 months' home detention, saying Win avoided jail by a "small margin."

                      Home detention for tax evasion [24 April 2023]
                      In sentencing Clark, Judge Snell noted his “astonishment” at the way Clark acted in respect of the court proceedings and said he had taken the matter to every legal challenge he possibly could. He also noted the jury found Clark acted fraudulently “without any difficulty at all”.

                      Brothel owner sentenced to home detention over tax evasion [12 May 2023]
                      Zhou has already repaid $300,000 but has been ordered to pay a further $150,000 in reparations and undertake community work.

                      Newsable: Billions likely lost to tax evasion, as white collar crime investigators go underfunded [15 May 2023]
                      “One of the ones [types of white-collar crime] I look at, for example, is tax evasion. Inland Revenue usually report that they find a billion or so in an ordinary year. But that’s what they find. What they don’t find is, of course, going to be much greater than that.”

                      Is the only real problem with tax evasion ‘getting caught’? So many thrilling 'stories', and this is a great opportunity to post them here. Will there be more opportunities? I do hope so.

                      Why poverty in New Zealand is everyone's concern
                      Liang describes poverty as a "heritable condition" that perpetuates and amplifies through generations: "It is also not hard to see how individual poverty flows into communities and society, with downstream effects on economics, crime and health, as well as many other systems. Loosen one strand and everything else unravels."

                      A Kete Half Empty
                      Poverty is your problem, it is everyone's problem, not just those who are in poverty. – Rebecca, a child from Te Puru

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      21 May 2023 at 12:00 pm

                      If you believe that "the use of trusts" and "tax avoidance" are whole different conversations, then I have an old car to sell you wink

                      Trustee tax increase 'is response to spike in trust use to avoid tax' [18 May 2023]

                      Parker said new information from Inland Revenue showed an almost 50% spike in income subject to the trustee rate when the new 39% personal income tax rate came into effect.

                      The amount going through trusts had jumped from $11.4 billion in the 2020 tax year to $17.1b in the 2021 tax year – a $5.7b increase.

                      “The report also shows that a substantial number of the super-wealthy funnel their income through trusts which minimises their tax bill. This change remedies that,” Parker said.

                      Parker said the change would improve the fairness of the tax system.

                      Seems fair to me – have NAct promised to reverse it yet? Not paying your fair share of tax is an optional perk of wealth the world over.

                      Re tax evasion:

                      https://www.ird.govt.nz/managing-my-tax/tax-crime/tell-us-about-evasion-or-fraud/report-anonymously-ir873

                      Do any of those examples include the use of trusts?

                      Just the one, as far as I can tell.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 2:45 pm

                      "If you believe that "the use of trusts" and "tax avoidance" are whole different conversations, then I have an old car to sell you"

                      They are completely different. Evidence of tax avoidance is not evidence that trusts are used for tax evasion.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      21 May 2023 at 8:26 pm

                      "If you believe that "the use of trusts" and "tax avoidance" are whole different conversations, then I have an old car to sell you" – DMK

                      They are completely different. – LB

                      Nope. The clue is in the title of the article about that “silly“, “faulty and shoddy” (in your opinion) report, specifically – "spike in trust use to avoid tax."

                      Trustee tax increase 'is response to spike in trust use to avoid tax' [May 18 2023]

                      Why might you be finding that report so difficult to comprehend?

                      https://www.ird.govt.nz/managing-my-tax/tax-crime/tell-us-about-evasion-or-fraud/report-anonymously-ir873

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 8:36 pm

                      "Nope. The clue is in the title of the article about that “silly“, “faulty and shoddy” report, specifically – "spike in trust use to avoid tax.""

                      Your link is to an article that includes this pearler:

                      Auckland University law professor Mark Henaghan said the increase was down to one thing – a growing awareness of how trusts could be used to reduce tax bills."

                      Seriously? The good professor ought to know there are a) many reasons people put homes in trusts that have nothing to do with tax, and b) any use of trusts to lower tax could easily be mirrored by other vehicles. Find better sources, Drowsy.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      21 May 2023 at 9:05 pm

                      "If you believe that "the use of trusts" and "tax avoidance" are whole different conversations, then I have an old car to sell you" – DMK

                      They are completely different. – LB

                      It appears you are firmly of the opinion that "the use of trusts" and "tax avoidance" "are completely different", so let's agree to disagree. Others can make up their own mind after considering the evidence.

                      Tax bill improves fairness at home and abroad
                      [18 May 2023]
                      “The trustee tax change will align the trustee tax rate with the top personal tax rate of 39 per cent. There is evidence that high income earners have shifted their income to trusts to avoid the top personal rate.

                      “This change will mainly affect the super-trusts of the super-wealthy. In the 2021 tax year, 5 per cent of all trusts that earned some income earned 78 per cent of all trustee income. The change does not ordinarily target smaller family trusts, who can continue to use existing rules to allocate trust income to beneficiaries to be taxed at their personal rates.

                  • Liberty Belle …
                    20 May 2023 at 11:31 pm

                    "For a few wealthy Kiwis, tax avoidance is a way of life. Sad, if you really think about it – maybe it gives them some small pleasure?"

                    Do any of those examples include the use of trusts? We can have a whole different conversation about tax avoidance if you want.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      21 May 2023 at 9:55 am

                      Having a trust is not always evidence of an attempt to rort or tax evasion. Taking advantage of Trusts and companies set-ups is not prima facie an indication of wanting to rort.

                      It is only a rort really when tax is evaded.

                      The financial planning for tradespeople can often include trusts and companies. The prudent financial planning for people who have children from a prior relationship and/or assets from a prior relationship often use the Trust avenue to protect the children should a subsequent relationship break down. I mean why should a subsequent husband/wife be entitled to assets from a prior husband/parent who worked so hard?

                      Trust have always paid a higher tax rate so keeping assets for children in this way is not all beer and skittles. Neither is making payouts to beneficiaries, despite what is being said here. (There is pretty onerous record keeping involved) Many trusts have assets that are not liquid and cannot do that anyway. Many settlors of Trusts keep the assets within the trust and so any earnings are taxed at a higher rate.

                      I have no problem with a higher rate for tax for Trusts but long term it is not going to yield big bucks….better to spend the time and money on ways to catch the evading group (ie the large group paying less than a person on the lowest income rates, or to look at a capital gains or wealth tax or even a modest death duties regime.

                      I appreciate railing at the so-called tax and Trust bogey does fit in with the depression inducing cry 'its not fair' but ultimately it gets us nowhere.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 2:43 pm

                      "Having a trust is not always evidence of an attempt to rort or tax evasion."

                      "I appreciate railing at the so-called tax and Trust bogey does fit in with the depression inducing cry 'its not fair' but ultimately it gets us nowhere."

                      To Shanreagh…

                      Good comment.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 7:28 pm

                      "And there is this…"

                      That article is full of nonsense. Take this statement:

                      "Because trust income can be spread across a number of beneficiaries, who are often lower earners, the income is often taxed at a lower bracket, he says."

                      The author fails to understand that exactly the same result can be achieved without a trust.

                  • Bearded Git …
                    21 May 2023 at 9:14 am

                    Superb work Drowsy.

              • mikesh …
                20 May 2023 at 6:47 pm

                If a property is transferred to a trust the income from that property is taxed at a much lower rate if the beneficiaries are children, than would be the case if the parents themselves continued to own the properties, and paid tax on the income from those properties at their own tax rate; assuming of course that the children's tax rates are much lower than the parents (which of course is normally the case). The parents can then charge the children for their upkeep, and be compensated thereby from their children's trust income.

                It should be mandated that parents support their children themselves rather than turning that support over to a trust.

                • Liberty Belle …
                  20 May 2023 at 8:13 pm

                  Wrong. There are rules around what can be distributed to children under 16, and all distributions at balance date are taxed at the trust rate of tax.

                • alwyn …
                  20 May 2023 at 9:23 pm

                  "parents support their children themselves"

                  Well there goes working for families.

                • Shanreagh …
                  21 May 2023 at 10:12 am

                  Incorrect. If the assets are held within the trust it does not matter who the proposed beneficiaries are and what their individual tax circumstances are.

                  So a Family Trust with a range of possible beneficiaries pays tax at the tax rate for trusts, now the highest rate. The process for allocating to beneficiaries is time- and document- intensive & the benefits so marginal, for my family Trust anyway. This is because many of the beneficiaries the Trust could allocate to now have marginal tax rates above the lowest personal tax rate, that we have not bothered.

                  NB One of a common way of avoding tax is simply not to pay PAYE for employees or FBT etc. While these crimes, when caught, are heavily penalised, that the financial state of many of these people ensure that tax to pay and penalties can be repaid on the 'never, never' or even if bankruptcy ensues may be paid a low rates in the $$$$

        • Liberty Belle 2.2.1.2
          20 May 2023 at 1:56 pm

          And even then, any distributions to beneficiaries attract tax at their personal tax rate, so at the top end, the 39c applies eventually anyway. Trust income can only escape the higher rate if it is retained in the Trust. The lifting of the rate is largely symbolic.

          • Incognito 2.2.1.2.1
            20 May 2023 at 2:09 pm

            High-earning New Zealanders moved nearly $6b income a year into trusts after the Government introduced a new 39 percent personal tax rate – but now Inland Revenue will chase it down

            https://www.newsroom.co.nz/budget-no-major-new-taxes-but-80b-more-tax-revenue

            Looks a lot more than simply ‘symbolic’ to me.

            • Liberty Belle 2.2.1.2.1.1
              20 May 2023 at 8:44 pm
              1. From the same article:

              "It’s forecast to bring in an extra $350m a year to Crown coffers from next year."

              And:

              New Zealanders will pay nearly $80 billion more in tax over the next four years, according to Treasury projections.

              So the change is forecast to contribute just 1.75% of the total additional tax NZ'ers will pay according to Treasury forecasts.

              • Liberty Belle …
                20 May 2023 at 8:52 pm

                Stuffed up the block formatting, so re-posting rest of comment…

                2. Total Trustee income in 2021 was $17.1bn.

                Trustee tax rate to increase to 39% | Budget 2023 | Deloitte New Zealand

                So the estimated $350m is just 2.05% of total trustee income from 2 years ago.

                3.

                "the new top rate may only hit the back pockets of the 2-3% of top income earners"

                Tax rate change enacted along with big-brother information gathering powers | Tax Alert | December 2020 | Deloitte New Zealand

                • Bearded Git …
                  21 May 2023 at 9:13 am

                  350 million dollars a year (7 billion in 20 years) pays for a lot of cycleways and public transport.

              • Incognito …
                21 May 2023 at 5:11 pm

                Indeed, nothing ‘symbolic’ about $350m a year. The “m” is not a symbol but a prefix that means one has to add another six zeros to get the real figure, in real dollars.

                Not going after this money would indeed be tantamount to ‘waste’, so you should be fully behind it, yet you are not, which is rather odd and counter-intuitive.

                My comment was a specific reply and specifically mentioned the nearly $6b income a year by high-earning New Zealanders. (NB the “b” prefix means that you add nine zeros to the figure) So, why are you diverting, again? Instead of putting up a decent argument you divert and/or post a wall of selective quotes or links, which is your MO here.

                You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about the increase in trustee tax but no compelling counter-arguments!? Go figure!

                • Liberty Belle …
                  21 May 2023 at 7:17 pm

                  "My comment was a specific reply and specifically mentioned the nearly $6b income a year by high-earning New Zealanders."

                  My comment referred to the lifting of the trust tax rate as symbolic. I then went on to demonstrate precisely how insignificant the $35m is in the context of the budget in which it was introduced. Your $6bn is irrelevant and a diversion.

                  "Not going after this money would indeed be tantamount to ‘waste’…"

                  No, it really wouldn't. As I have pointed out, there is a real chance this change could raise little additional or even less revenue.

                  • Liberty Belle …
                    21 May 2023 at 7:43 pm

                    Correction: $350m.

                  • Incognito …
                    21 May 2023 at 8:00 pm

                    Your $6bn is irrelevant and a diversion.

                    I see, you believe you’re a clever troll.

                    It’s neither irrelevant nor a diversion (nice try!) but at the core of the Government decision:

                    “Ministers made clear then that if analysis indicated high income earners were circumventing the rate through greater use of trusts, the Government would move to address this issue.

                    “New information from Inland Revenue has shown an almost 50 percent spike in income subject to the trustee rate, from $11.4 billion in the 2020 tax year to $17.1 billion in the 2021 tax year. [my italics]

                    https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/trustee-tax-change-improve-fairness

                    I then went on to demonstrate precisely how insignificant the $35m is in the context of the budget in which it was introduced.

                    Well, if you keep dropping zeroes it will become insignificant. However, your incorrect $35m (the correct figure still is $350m) is neither ‘symbolic’ nor ‘insignificant’ and you have ‘demonstrated’ only that you’re a disingenuous troll.

                    Only four days ago you argued (https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-policy-machine-is-a-thing-to-behold/#comment-1950174) about much smaller amounts being wasteful:

                    $330k to open a motorway (Billion-dollar Transmission Gully opening ceremony cost $337,000 | Stuff.co.nz)

                    On the one hand, $330k is wasteful but OTOH, $35m or $350m is ‘symbolic’ and ‘insignificant’!?

                    For someone who doesn’t have a Trust nor the desire to have one (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20-05-2023/#comment-1950619) you have an awful lot to say about this topic, which raises the question what your agenda is with this?

                    Good commenters here are wasting their time engaging with you, which I have noticed and noted before.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 8:19 pm

                      "It’s neither irrelevant nor a diversion (nice try!) but at the core of the Government decision:"

                      The estimated benefit from the change is $350m. I demonstrated clearly that is immaterial (and therefore symbolic) when I compared this amount to three seperate benchmarks…a) the total amount of additional tax estimated over the next four years, b) the total trustee income from 2021, and c) the % of top income earners the new 'top tax rate' would effect.

                      I have also demonstrated (if you had bothered to read through the thread) that the $350m may end up being much less or even zero.

                      You either don't have the understanding of this subject to engage in an informed matter, or you're just being a dick for the sake of it. I'll go with the latter. It's in your MO.

                      [You want us to believe that $6b yearly income by high-earning New Zealanders and that could net $350m in extra tax could magically disappear and become zero even, which would indeed be ‘insignificant’ as you claim. High-earning means that they are or should already be paying 39% tax on any profit, be it from a Trust or elsewhere, and regardless of how they distribute the profit. The fact that Trustee tax was 33% strongly suggests (!) that those high-earning individuals saw a strong enough reason in moving about $6b of their yearly income into Trusts. If this wasn’t a legal loophole used by high-earning New Zealanders then I’d agree that the move is ‘symbolic’. However, the numbers suggest this to be unlikely and implausible. Have the Opposition declared yet that they will repeal the decision? If not, why not? Stop trolling and stop dicking around – only because I’ve been busy you’ve got this far with your trollish claims (e.g. your BS allegation about this government wasting money on “a movie about a Green party MP” here: https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-policy-machine-is-a-thing-to-behold/#comment-1950174). This is your warning – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      21 May 2023 at 8:55 pm

                      Mod note

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 8:22 pm

                      "Good commenters here are wasting their time engaging with you, which I have noticed and noted before."

                      Really? Like Shanreagh? Red Logix? Both of whom have taken the same position as I have during this thread.

                    • Incognito []
                      21 May 2023 at 8:35 pm

                      No

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 9:41 pm

                      "You want us to believe that $6b yearly income by high-earning New Zealanders and that could net $350m in extra tax could magically disappear and become zero even, which would indeed be ‘insignificant’ as you claim."

                      Well, on the issue of significance, I'll quote Grant Robertson, who seems to agree with my assessment:

                      "The additional $350 million a year pales in comparison with the overall tax take, he says."

                      Budget 2023: No ‘Major’ New Taxes But $80b More Tax Revenue | Newsroom
                      On the issue of the $350m, I'll again leave this to Grant Robertson:

                      "He says 78 percent of all trustee income is earned by the top 5 percent of trusts – that’s $13.3b out of $17.1b. “This is about a small group of New Zealanders paying a little more as a result of this."

                      Budget 2023: No ‘Major’ New Taxes But $80b More Tax Revenue | Newsroom

                      A small amount of NZ'ers. The vast majority of trusts aren't set up by the rich, and only a small number of trusts will pay the extra tax.

                      That should have rung alarm bells right there. Most trusts are for the benefit of less than wealthy NZ'ers, who will simply distribute all income (rather than potentially retaining some income in the trust and paying a higher tax rate) to beneficiaries on a lower tax rate.

                      And here's the kicker…the $350m is exactly 6% of the $6bn, meaning they are suggesting they will collect the extra tax on every cent of that income. They are dreaming.

                      [I can’t see anywhere where commenters here on TS and/or Grant Robertson said or implied that $350m extra tax intake is ‘insignificant’ and ‘symbolic’. It would indeed raise serious questions as to why Robertson would have made the decision if this were the case. My take is that you are twisting words & meanings & intentions, as per usual, to score your points. Essentially, you want us to believe that those high-earning New Zealanders – and you keep diverting away from this specific sub-category – shifted nearly $6b of their yearly income into Trusts and they will now hand over control of those Trust assets/income to others just to avoid paying any tax on it (“even zero”!? The mind just boggles at your naivety! Time will tell how that $6b of yearly income will be taxed or ‘vanish’ from the IRD radar, as you seem to want us believe. Frankly, I have enough of your gaslighting days here on TS and I reaffirm your Mod note and don’t want to waste anymore of my Mod time on this – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      23 May 2023 at 8:51 pm

                      Mod note

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      23 May 2023 at 9:41 pm

                      "I can’t see anywhere where commenters here on TS and/or Grant Robertson said or implied that $350m extra tax intake is ‘insignificant’ and ‘symbolic’. "

                      Re Grant Robertson:

                      You didn't look very hard. From my comment you were moderating:

                      ""The additional $350 million a year pales in comparison with the overall tax take, he says."

                      'Pales in comparison'.

                      Re: Other contributors:

                      I didn't claim they "implied that $350m extra tax intake is ‘insignificant’ and ‘symbolic’". Look back at comment https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20-05-2023/#comment-1950730.
                      There are a number of other contributors here who have concurred with a variety of opinions I have proffered across this thread.

                      "you want us to believe that those high-earning New Zealanders – and you keep diverting away from this specific sub-category – shifted nearly $6b of their yearly income into Trusts and they will now hand over control of those Trust assets/income to others just to avoid paying any tax on it (“even zero”!?)

                      Tax is not paid on the assets in a trust, or even necessarily by those who exercise control over those assets. Tax is paid on the income from the trust (either by the trust or by beneficiaries on distribution). That $6bn you refer to will simply find its way to beneficiaries with a lower tax rate, or into other vehicles.

                      [I’m not too surprised that you continue to waste my time and keep digging & doubling down and now denying your own comments aka gaslighting, twisting & turning.

                      Have it your way: take 10 days off for ignoring several warnings about trolling and wasting moderator time – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      23 May 2023 at 10:02 pm

                      Mod note

          • AB 2.2.1.2.2
            20 May 2023 at 2:41 pm

            But if you don't need any operational income from the Trust for personal use like paying for groceries, rent, power etc., you can leave the money in the Trust. And the Trust re-invests it and earns more income at the same discounted tax rate, which you then re-invest in a spiral of increasing wealth accumulation. The accumulated wealth might not be dispersed for years, or to the next generation, where lower personal tax rates might apply.

            The money-grubbing classes are very good at this sort of game – they always find a way of getting an advantage over others. Like a sewage leak, the rest of us have only a vague, passing sense that something whiffs a bit, then you pull up the floorboards and realise the whole edifice is rotten.

            • LibertyBelle 2.2.1.2.2.1
              20 May 2023 at 6:29 pm

              Ultimately the money is distributed and tax paid. Anyone can set up a trust. Do you have one? If it is so beneficial, and you don’t, why not?

              • mikesh …
                20 May 2023 at 6:55 pm

                If it is so beneficial, and you don’t, why not?

                Because it is essentially a tax dodge. There are many shady loopholes in the tax system: this is one of them. Unfortunately the measure introduced in the budget will not achieve much because it doesn't address the main problem.

                • Liberty Belle …
                  20 May 2023 at 8:15 pm

                  Trusts are not a tax dodge. That ship sailed a long time ago, like the use of gifting to avoid or minimise rest home costs.

                  Trusts are primarily used now for asset protection, particularly in conjunction with pre-nups.

                  • Mac1 …
                    20 May 2023 at 8:27 pm

                    When did the ship sail? How long ago and what were the reasons for her departure? In a similar analogy, the reasons for emigration by ship in the 19th century ranged from a search for freedom and personal advancement to colonial exploitation.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      20 May 2023 at 9:02 pm

                      Yonks ago. For years (from 2010) the highest personal tax rate was 33%, so there was no tax advantage. Before that – from the 1980's through to 2000 the highest personal tax rate was also 33%.

                    • mikesh …
                      21 May 2023 at 5:41 pm

                      Look at it this way: if trusts were abolished and everyone paid the correct amount of tax on the income they derived from their assets – rents, dividends, profits, etc., would you consider they were being unfairly treated? No? But that is what is happening when income is passed to beneficiaries whose tax rate is lower. And “protecting assets” is often just a weasel word for diddling one’s creditors, including the IRD.

                      Yes. There are some legitimate uses for trusts, but when there is a stampede to form trusts when the top tax rate is increased from 33% to 39%, one can hardly be blamed for being suspicious.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    20 May 2023 at 9:37 pm

                    "Asset protection" is just a weasel word for tax evasion.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      20 May 2023 at 9:52 pm

                      No it isn't. Asset protection is precisely what it says. People with assets (eg property) put them into family trusts to protect them from matrimonial property claims, not tax.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    21 May 2023 at 8:32 pm

                    No it isn't. Asset protection is precisely what it says. People with assets (eg property) put them into family trusts to protect them from matrimonial property claims, not tax.

                    Oh – is this where you pretend that someone so ungenerous as not to share with an intimate partner embraces the IRD like a soulmate and gives them everything they're due?

                    Oh you sweet summer child! Naive even by the standards of the irredeemably stupid Right.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 8:42 pm

                      "Oh – is this where you pretend that someone so ungenerous as not to share with an intimate partner embraces the IRD like a soulmate and gives them everything they're due?

                      Not necessarily just partners or spouses. Sometimes people establish trusts to protect assets from future partners of their children. You should read up on it.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      23 May 2023 at 10:39 am

                      Zoom……if the so-called 'intimate partner' is so ungenerous to find a new partner while still married to the first and claims the assets built up by a prior spouse/partner for the children of that marriage.

                      You do not appear to know what happens on marriage break-up. I had to get another mortgage to pay my former husband out. Payment being made as a single person is very different from two working and being able to pay and is pretty poor when he had not contributed half of the value….

                      But you go the way with the fluffy ducks and the perfect marital bliss. It does not work that way sometimes in the real world and some of us in the real world do actually want to live in the homes we built up.

            • Johnr 2.2.1.2.2.2
              20 May 2023 at 6:40 pm

              Beautiful analogy.

              I can smell the aroma from here

            • Shanreagh 2.2.1.2.2.3
              21 May 2023 at 10:24 am

              And the Trust re-invests it and earns more income at the same discounted tax rate, which you then re-invest in a spiral of increasing wealth accumulation.

              I somehow don't think that paying the higest rate of tax is a discounted rate!

              Not all people who set up a Family Trust fall into the categories you are throwing around. I worked hard to save and get ahead and after paying out a husband who was quite happy to take half of the 'wealth' in the home I had on marriage and which he moved into I saw sense and set up a Trust to protect myself and family. I had to re mortgage the house and pay for it again. This was with all the care to separate our earnings at the time.

              But you go on slamming people who have Family Trusts.

              It has meant that that the earnings in the Trust are taxed at much higher rates than I would have had if I was earning but the Trust has protected me and what I have worked hard for.

              • Shanreagh …
                23 May 2023 at 10:31 am

                The real problem, as opposed to the philosphical problem that some see of so-called 'rich pricks' and their 'mega property deals', like me apparently, is people like this:

                https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/132108201/company-director-jailed-after-kiwisavers-left-owing-1-million

                This bloke did not pay lawful deductions made on behalf of IRD for employees kiwisaver etc and there does not appear to be any chance that he will. I mean going to prison is hardly likely to get the lost money into employees KS accounts.

                I think IRD is onto the Trust tax dodgers quite promptly whereas with people like this it can take at least a year, if PAYE is paid annually for something to be seen as amiss.

                With employee pay software able to generate payments to IRD weekly, fortnightly or monthly etc it is time a bit of legislative force was used to make all employers pay IRD regularly. I know large employers can be required to pay IRD for PAYE etc more than annually but looking at this person you can see how a smaller employer who is not prepared to play by the rules can have a debt mount up.

                As the daughter of two accountants i know that some scummy employers do use their employees PAYE/KS etc payments to meet cash flow problems and to bankroll expansion. Hoping on the never-never that the ship might come in with additional money to fix it up before year end. Sometimes though the ship salis away and doesn't come back.

                My dad had views that this is theft from IRD and a brake on the amount of money that could be used to run the country. He told his clients this and those who were not prepared to mend their ways duirng the year were dropped.

                As far as my Trust is concerned the piece of mind that this has brought has been immense and I know that the Trust pays more in tax than I would pay personally but this is a small price to pay. As a retiree I am not able to meet a mortgage to pay anyone out and staying put where I am means much to me.

          • Bearded Git 2.2.1.2.3
            20 May 2023 at 7:18 pm

            Liberty….why are you getting so get up if the change from 33 to 39 makes no difference? Methinks thou doth protest too much.

            • Liberty Belle 2.2.1.2.3.1
              20 May 2023 at 8:17 pm

              I don't have a trust, and no desire to have one. The notion that people with trusts are rich pricks trying to avoid tax is a common misconception among left wingers. It's part of the whole tall poppy thing we suffer from in this country.

              • RedLogix …
                20 May 2023 at 8:21 pm

                You are 100% correct. Unfortunately the people you are responding to have zero interest in learning anything. Their motives come from a different place.

              • Muttonbird …
                20 May 2023 at 8:54 pm

                Why do people who are not rich pricks use trusts? Why on earth do trusts exist?

              • Stuart Munro …
                20 May 2023 at 9:41 pm

                You're probably thinking of squat poppies – those morally stunted and undeserving persons that, at every opportunity, seek to avoid their social responsibilities, and imagine that, when called out, that they are victims.

                Tall poppies cheerfully bow to the common good.

                • Liberty Belle …
                  20 May 2023 at 9:53 pm

                  Who are these 'squat poppies'? Care to name one?

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    21 May 2023 at 8:23 pm

                    The litmus test is the claim to be a tall poppy.

                    Real tall poppies have no need to make that claim.

            • Liberty Belle 2.2.1.2.4.1
              20 May 2023 at 9:06 pm

              Parker either doesn't have a clue, or he is simply dishonest. It showed in the silly report he had compiled about the proportion of income tax paid by the wealthy.

              And I'll quote from the article:

              ”The Government is trying to justify this tax hike by pointing to the most wealthy,” he said. “But those people can keep money within company structures and pay the 28% company tax rate. In reality this tax grab will hit small business owners who often hold business in trusts for legitimate reasons.”

              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                21 May 2023 at 12:01 pm

                Clueless, dishonest and/or just plain "silly" – you be the Judge wink

                NZ’s tax system is not progressive – where to from here? [28 April 2023]
                How much money the government earns from taxation, who pays and how much they pay is a political conversation we can’t put off forever.

                As for the quote @9:06 pm yesterday, the Taxpayers' Union's campaigns manager Callum Purves might very well say that…

                Imo there's nothing honourable about tax avoidance – absolutely nothing.

                Trustee tax increase 'is response to spike in trust use to avoid tax' [18 May 2023]
                Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States had broadly comparable tax regimes and trust laws to New Zealand, and all align their trustee tax rates with their top personal tax rates.
                …
                “The $5.7b spike in income taxed at the 33% trustee rate in the first year of the 39% top marginal tax rate is all the evidence that the Government needed to respond.”

                On the other hand, the increase in the trustee tax rate to 39% with effect from 1 April 2024 should not have come as a surprise. Inland Revenue recommended the trustee rate should also be increased to 39% when the top personal income tax rate of 39% was introduced in 2021. It was only a matter of time before the trustee rate rose and the publication of Inland Revenue’s High Wealth Individual Research Project provided a clear opportunity for the Government to do so.

                In the accompanying press release announcing the measure Minister of Revenue David Parker noted that new Inland Revenue information shows a near 50% increase in trust income taxable at the trustee rate from $11.4 billion in the 2020 tax year to $17.1 billion in the 2021 tax year. The top 5% of trusts with taxable income accounted for $13.3 billion or 78% of all trustee income in the 2021 tax year.

                As a tax policy measure, it is logical and is expected to raise $350 million annually. (There will be some exemptions for disabled and deceased estates).
                https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/121290/terry-bauchers-surprised-theres-no-tax-surprise-budget-expects-tax-debate

                Re tax evasion:

                https://www.ird.govt.nz/managing-my-tax/tax-crime/tell-us-about-evasion-or-fraud/report-anonymously-ir873

                After all, what’s sauce for the goose…

                https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/about-work-and-income/contact-us/report-suspected-fraud/index.html

                • Liberty Belle …
                  21 May 2023 at 2:49 pm

                  Parker's study was faulty and shoddy, right down to not including tax transfers. It was a politically motivated sideshow.

                  A far better study is the Oliver Shaw research (Rich are paying fair share of tax, research finds | Newshub).

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    21 May 2023 at 8:24 pm

                    A far better study is the Oliver Shaw research.

                    Is that the study that found "those paying the highest average effective tax rate were single, unemployed people in rented accommodation"?

                    Fair's fair.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 8:34 pm

                      It's the study that found that not including tax transfers in a report of comparative taxation is really, really silly.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    21 May 2023 at 8:46 pm

                    Ah, then that is the study that found "those paying the highest average effective tax rate were single, unemployed people in rented accommodation." Nice to have that cleared up.

                    The study done for tax consultancy OliverShaw – not a lot of "single, unemployed people in rented accommodation" on their books, to be fair.

                    OliveShaw – contact us today
                    Tax Advisory Services
                    Tax advisory for corporate clients, corporate boards, high net worth individuals and accounting firms.
                    https://olivershaw.co.nz/

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 8:50 pm

                      The firms principal is a former deputy IRD commissioner. But play the man if that makes you feel better.

                    • Incognito []
                      21 May 2023 at 9:00 pm

                      And Don Brash was a former Governor of the RBNZ. Your point?

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 8:56 pm

                      BTW, this is about the research methodology and findings:

                      "Leading tax consultancy OliverShaw commissioned Australasian consulting firm, Sapere Research Group, to prepare a report on the effective rates of tax that New Zealand’s tax and benefit systems impose on the incomes of its residents. The 263-page report adopted the standard modelling methodologies used in the OECD Taxing Wages study to review the income and tax of illustrative households to calculate the average effective tax rates paid by low, medium and high-income earners in New Zealand.

                      “One of the questions asked is whether the very wealthy pay taxes at the same or higher rate than middle income earners,” says OliverShaw Principal, Robin Oliver. “This research shows clearly that, whether you consider taxable income or other measures, such as economic income, the answer is: ‘Yes, they do.’ The key conclusion of the Report is: “Average effective tax rates increase as the net real economic incomes of households increase.”

                      Do the wealthiest New Zealanders pay their fair share of tax? | interest.co.nz

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    21 May 2023 at 9:54 pm

                    The High Wealth Individuals Research Project is internationally significant because it uses real data, unlike other overseas studies which draw on surveys or scenarios, David Parker says.

                    A far better study is the Oliver Shaw research. – LB @2:49 pm

                    LB, why is the Sapere study “a far better study“, in your opinion?

                    Tax and the economic income of the wealthy – April 2023 [PDF]
                    In 2022 Te Tari Taake, Inland Revenue, researched how much tax the wealthiest families in New Zealand pay compared to their economic income.

                    About this research
                    The research was done to fill in gaps in New Zealand’s understanding of the taxation and income of the wealthiest New Zealanders.

                    Inland Revenue gathered a lot of information from 311 of the wealthiest families in New Zealand. These families generally have a net worth of more than $50m.

                    This information cannot be accessed by anyone except a small project team, and will not be used for tax compliance or audit activity.

                    Inland Revenue also used information it already had or was publicly available

                    Main finding
                    The effective tax rate (tax paid divided by economic income) of the families we researched varied considerably, depending on how their economic income was gained from 2015 to 2021. The median (middle) effective tax rate was 8.9%.

                    Explanation
                    Compared to the rest of the population, the wealthiest people in New Zealand tend to earn more through their investments rather than from a salary or wage. The graph over the page shows the personal taxable income of the wealthiest families in New Zealand alongside
                    other forms of economic income.

                    Capital gains
                    Personal taxable income is only a small part of the economic income of the wealthiest New Zealand families.

                    Most of the capital gains made by the researched families came through increases in the value of businesses they own or control. However, economic income gained from businesses, property, and financial portfolios all had a similar impact on lowering their
                    effective tax rate. This group hold many of their assets in trust.

                    Sixty-seven percent of the economic income made by the wealthiest families in New Zealand is made in trusts.

                    Tax and Transfer Progressivity in New Zealand: Part 2 Results (AN 23/03) [26 April 2023]

                    The results in this note can be compared with those estimated by Inland Revenue’s 2023 High‑Wealth Individuals Research Project (the Inland Revenue Project), which crucially does include company taxes, trustee income, and trustee taxes in their measures. The Inland Revenue Project investigates EATRs from a cohort of New Zealand families identified as having high net worth for New Zealand, who are unlikely to be sampled by HES and, therefore, are unlikely to be included in our EATR estimates.

                    Together, these two projects will create a more complete picture of EATRs across the income and wealth distributions. Our HES-based modelling will provide EATRs by different income and demographic groups, including the median New Zealand family. By comparison, the Inland Revenue Project will provide insight into EATRs for the wealthiest New Zealand families. We find our most comparable population median EATRs to be consistently higher than those calculated for the high-wealth population in the Inland Revenue Project.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      21 May 2023 at 9:58 pm

                      Is that the Parker one that doesn't take into account transfers but included unearned income?

                  • Liberty Belle …
                    21 May 2023 at 9:55 pm

                    "And Don Brash was a former Governor of the RBNZ. Your point?"

                    That playing the man (or in this case the organisation) is rather cheap.

                    • Incognito …
                      22 May 2023 at 12:30 pm

                      Your appeal to authority shows your bias. DMK rightly pointed out a possible conflict of interest that may cloud the judgement or bias the opinion of ‘the man’. This is not ‘playing the man’ per se but a good counter attack when you’ve run out of arguments and refuse to agree to disagree and insist on scoring points. Context is important, but you seem to apply it only when it suits you.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      22 May 2023 at 12:59 pm

                      DMK rightly pointed out a possible conflict of interest that may cloud the judgement or bias the opinion of ‘the man’.

                      Anyone can insinuate a conflict of interest. It's a cheap shot.

                    • Incognito []
                      22 May 2023 at 1:39 pm

                      Appealing to authority is a weak & lazy shot.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      22 May 2023 at 1:41 pm

                      "Appeaing to authority is a weak & lazy shot."

                      You probably should apologise to DMK. His long, but nevertheless informative posts are full of them.

                    • Incognito []
                      22 May 2023 at 2:24 pm

                      He’s not on Mod watch, you are. Don’t tell me what to do here, you are not a Mod, I am.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    22 May 2023 at 12:08 am

                    Is that the Parker one that doesn't take into account transfers but included unearned income?

                    There's an IRD one (uses data on 311 wealthy (net worth generally >$50m) NZ families) that includes all income, a NZ Treasury one, and a Sapere one.

                    What makes the Sapere one the best, and the IRD one "silly", "faulty and shoddy", in your opinion?

                    Te wiki o te tāke – The New Zealand Tax Podcast – dissecting Inland Revenue’s report on high wealth individuals with Shamubeel Eaqub [30 April 2023]

                    This week I’m joined by Shamubeel Eaqub, a partner at the boutique economic consultancy Sense Partners. Shamubeel is a regular commentator on economics and is the author of several books including Generation Rent. Kia ora Shamubeel, welcome to the podcast. It's been an interesting week, we've had three major reports on the true tax rate paid by the wealthy on their economic income. What have you made of all this? Are we any the wiser after these three reports?

                    Shamubeel Eaqub (SE): I think we are much wiser. I think we've all always suspected that the rich were not required to pay tax on a lot of their incomes. But we didn't know how much income or how much wealth there was. So, the report by IRD in particular, I think was really useful to get a much better understanding of the survey of high wealth individuals and families. Just how rich they were and just how much income they were earning from wealth alone. The report that came out the previous week from Sapere and OliverShaw Consulting I think was really poor.

                    I think the official report laid bare those conjectures and I think fairly largely lobbying efforts that was done in the Sapere report.

                    Terry Baucher (TB): Yes, the Sapere report was something, I've described it elsewhere as fairly indigestible. You had the complete difference in the conclusions the Sapere report reached that broadly speaking the wealthy were paying a fair amount of tax in line with middle income New Zealand. By contrast the reports from Treasury and Inland Revenue which show a completely different picture, with Inland Revenue concluding the median income tax rate on economic income was 8.9%, I think that raised a lot of eyebrows.

                    So, here we are, arguing about who pays tax and how much they pay, rather than a wider debate on wealth, who has it, how they get and keep it, why this is seen as acceptable.

                    French economist Thomas Piketty labels tax rate paid by wealthy Kiwis 'depressing' [1 May 2023]

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      22 May 2023 at 11:56 am

                      "What makes the Sapere one the best, and the IRD one "silly", "faulty and shoddy", in your opinion?"

                      My response (with help from David Reddell Parker, taxation, and that IRD report | croaking cassandra).

                      1. The IRD report is effectively a survey of 311 families. As David Reddell points out:

                      "we don’t tax families, we tax individuals, and most of the families studied in this report included two spouses/partners. The median individual wealth is going to have been quite a bit lower than $106 million."

                      2. The IRD survey didn't take into account that in NZ, tax on property is already above the OECD median. In fcat , as David Reddel notes, that was one OECD chart left out of the IRD report. Conveniently.

                      3. The IRD survey includes unearned (unrealised and hypothetical) income for those individuals, but exclude that same unearned income from other tax payers. David Reddell noted of Parker that

                      "at his talk yesterday he even seemed attracted to a capital gains tax on unrealised gains, something I’m not aware that any country does on any sort of comprehensive basis"

                      4. The IRD survey takes no account of the rate of inflation.

                      As David Reddell states:

                      "But it was just knowingly dishonest of IRD not to have made the adjustment and to have presented as real income what no economist will regard as real income. But it will have suited their political masters (and perhaps reflected their longstanding institutional unease with an indexed tax system)."

                      5. The IRD survey takes no account of improvements performed on any of those assets at the tax payers expense.

                      6. If you refer to page 45 of the IRD report (report-high-wealth-individuals-research-project.pdf (ird.govt.nz)), at paragraph 4.17, you will find this comment:

                      "transfer income is not treated as a negative tax in our main scenarios,"

                      Above that comment is table 4.1, which shows that the ETR net of transfers at each decile:

                      D1: -52%

                      D2: -55%

                      D3: -36%

                      D4: – 2%

                      D5: 6%

                      D6: 18%

                      D7: 21%

                      D8: 23%

                      D9: 26%

                      D10: 29%

                      The Michael Reddell critique is worth a read, but there are others. The poor quality of the IRD work smacks of political interference. Michael Reddell sums it up in this understated manner:

                      "Not many government department research papers – and that, we are told, is all it is – get a Foreword from a senior Cabinet minister.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    22 May 2023 at 1:01 pm

                    My response (with help from David Reddell…
                    As David Reddell points out…
                    In fcat                     [sic], as David Reddel [sic] notes…
                    David Reddell noted of Parker that…
                    As David Reddell states…

                    The Michael Reddell critique is worth a read…
                    Michael Reddell sums it up in this understated manner…

                    "David Reddell" (or is it "Michael Reddell"?) is one (or two?) economists, "and like lawyers I can give you another one that will give a counterview."

                    LB, if you believe this wealth distribution is sustainable in the face of climate change, pandemics, food scarcity, war, environmental and economic crises et al., then I have an old car to sell you.

                    https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/16-08-2022/the-side-eyes-two-new-zealands-the-table

                    The point is, we can improve. And the starting point for that is to get over the awkwardness and start acknowledging the problem.
                    (Cough Cough)
                    "Hey, aaah… do you reckon we could pass something down for these guys over here?"

                    Nah – keep 'em hungry?

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      22 May 2023 at 1:40 pm

                      Sorry – getting David Parker and Michael Reddell conflated! But your pithy comment about economists and lawyers is of course quite true!

                      "f you think this wealth distribution is sustainable …'

                      Wealth and income are not the same thing and not always directly related. Nevertheless, your comment is a great segue, because the political messaging around the IRD study has cleverly conflated wealth and income to create a faux justification for more taxation.

                      The IRD report is fundamentally about the fairness or otherwise tax paid on income, not wealth. In fact it goes to great pains to justify itself by classifying unearned and frankly 'phantom' gains as 'income', when (ASGFIK) nowhere in the world is unearned income treated this way.

                      And David Parker further stokes this confusion in his opinion piece foreward:

                      "But these sample surveys do not provide the information we need on the true wealth – and, therefore, total income – of the wealthiest families, and the taxes they pay on that income."

                      Wealth and income are not the same, and Parker knows it.

                      Further to this, the ETR table clearly shows the tax system in NZ is already achieving significant income redistribution. We are at a point where the highest income earners pay a hugely distportionate amount of the total tax take, and a much higher ETR than low-income earners.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    22 May 2023 at 3:55 pm

                    ASGFIK [?]

                    LB, for all the huff and puff that "the IRD report is fundamentally about the fairness or otherwise [of] tax paid on income, not wealth", isn't it up to the IRD to say what the IRD report is fundamentally about?

                    Tax and the economic income of the wealthy [April 2023]
                    Economic income
                    Everyone needs money to buy food, clothes, shelter and all other goods and services.

                    There are many ways to gain this money. Most people work and are paid salary or wages. Often people talk about this as their ‘income’, and it is always taxed.

                    Many people have investments, like savings accounts, shares or KiwiSaver. Some start businesses. Others make money by buying something of value, often property or a business, which they could sell later. Each of these things are taxed differently.

                    When you add up all the ways people gain the ability to spend money, that is called their ‘economic income’.

                    'Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.'
                    – from David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens

                    Not knowing the first thing about economics or accounting (as long as I've got enough money to get by, I'm happy), I googled the term 'economic income', and apparently it's a thing – go figure.

                    Estimating the Distribution of Wealth in New Zealand
                    [April 2023; PDF[
                    Information on wealth is also important for understanding economic income, and by extension the distributional properties of tax and transfer systems and of other economic and social policy. The Haig-Simons definition of economic income is annual consumption plus (or minus) annual wealth gained (or lost), which can be estimated only with knowledge of the wealth distribution and how it changes over time.

                    There is growing evidence internationally that official statistics derived from household surveys underestimate top wealth shares (Balestra & Tonkin, 2018; Vermeulen, 2018; Lustig, 2019). In response, several alternative methods have been developed to estimate the wealth distribution, often making use of supplementary datasets, such as Rich Lists (Vermeulen, 2018) or tax data (Saez & Zucman, 2016, 2022; Smith, Zidar, & Zwick, 2023), to correct for top wealth underestimation. This paper sits within this body of literature on estimating the distribution and evolution of wealth.

                    High Wealth Individuals research project – Look beyond the noise [17 April 2023]
                    Effective tax rate dependent on measure of income used
                    An effective tax rate measures tax paid relative to a measure of income. What is included or not included within the relevant income measure will significantly impact the stated effective tax rate. This seems obvious when spelled out but easy to get lost in the hype of the moment – many will be guilty by comparison of the results to the statutory tax rates. The problem with this is that our current tax base does not tax all gains or notions of economic income.

                    IR’s HWI project included four separate base measures of income:

                    Taxable income – Broadly the income taxpayers are currently taxed on with the addition of fringe benefits
                    Gross cash income – Taxable income + untaxed monetary receipts + untaxed realised capital gains + net gifts and windfalls (inheritances and other lump sum payments)
                    Comprehensive income – Gross cash income + accrued capital gains on assets not sold
                    Economic income – Comprehensive income + imputed rental income for owner-occupied property

                    Hmm – while there might be bugger all diferrence between 'taxable income' and 'economic income' for much of the population most of the time, I can see why 'high wealth individuals', and their accountants, might have 'concerns' about using economic income to calculate a median effective tax rate of 9.8%.

                    Imho, this is about striking a fair balance, and we're not there yet.

                    NZ is finally making progress on child poverty – but a 'no frills' budget puts that at risk [17 May 2023]

                    While the prime minister has said there would be "targeted support for those that need it most with the rising cost of living", this hardly points to broader systemic change. If a cost-of-living crisis is seen as a short-term economic condition, deeper problems aren't addressed.

                    More fundamentally, it goes against a key purpose of these targets: to have the government set goals and make budget decisions that show it takes these targets seriously.

                    If this or any future budget fails to project any impact on child poverty, those targets risk becoming nothing more than a Treasury spreadsheet exercise.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      22 May 2023 at 4:19 pm

                      "isn't it up to the IRD to say what the IRD report is fundamentally about?"

                      Of course. My emphasis added.

                      "This report describes the outcomes of the High-Wealth Individuals Research Project (the Project). It contributes to this literature by investigating how much tax a group of high-wealth New Zealand families pay relative to their income – that is, their average effective tax rates (ETRs)."

                      and

                      "This report breaks new ground as ETRs for the high-wealth families (the Project population) are calculated by combining tax administration data, public data and survey data collected specifically for this Project."

                      report-high-wealth-individuals-research-project.pdf (ird.govt.nz)

                      The report is a 'project' about ETR's, and as table 4.1 shows, the TWG found that higher income earners pay considerable higher ETR's than those on lower incomes.

                      "I googled the term 'economic income', and apparently it's a thing – go figure."

                      It is. But is it ever used in taxing individuals? And if the IRD or David Parker were remotely honest, they would have taken into account the economic income of every earner in NZ, not just the one class they wanted to highlight.

                      "I can see why 'high wealth individuals', and their accountants, might have 'concerns' about using economic income"

                      I don't know whether they are concerned or not. But I can see why Parker and the IRD would be far less amendable to repeating study and including the impacts of the past year or so, with asset values (particularly house prices and managed funds) having fallen.

                      The entire exercise was political, with a predetermined outcome built in to its methodology. It was dishonest but it got the headlines the government wanted, so perhaps they're happy.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    23 May 2023 at 1:00 pm

                    So far you've taken issue with: the [dishonest, silly, faulty and shoddy] IRD report; Attorney-General David Parker [stokes confusion and either doesn't have a clue, or is simply dishonest]; Auckland University law professor Mark Henaghan; an article on ‘Mega Landlords: 48 per cent rise in homes owned by trustees 'suggests tax avoidance' [full of nonsense]; and our Govt [The way this government wastes money, it's a drop in the bucket.]

                    Susan St John on the ‘strange’ tax debate [26 April 2023]

                    Imho the report on the IRD project outcomes is interesting, but anyone can read this 2-page summary [PDF] and decide for themself.

                    The report is a 'project' about ETR's, and as table 4.1 shows, the TWG found that higher income earners pay considerable higher ETR's than those on lower incomes. – LB

                    The purpose of the project is no mystery, and what Table 4.1 shows is stated clearly on page 31 of the full report.

                    CHAPTER 1
                    PROJECT PURPOSE

                    Introduction

                    1.1 This report describes the outcomes of the High-Wealth Individuals Research Project (the Project). This is a research project carried out by Inland Revenue,
                    on the average effective tax rates (ETRs) of high-wealth New Zealand families, based on a comprehensive definition of income.
                    …
                    Table 4.1 below shows ETRs, as calculated by the TWG, based on both personal income tax and GST. The concept of income used here (total income) is similar
                    to taxable income. Unlike ETRs based on economic income, these ETRs do not comprehensively take account of untaxed sources of income, such as capital
                    gains.

                    But is it [economic income] ever used in taxing individuals? – LB

                    Elements of economic income are used in many countries for the purposes of taxing individuals. Of the seven happiest countries (all OECD members) in 2021, six had higher Tax-to-GDP ratios than NZ (ranked 9th for happiness) – go figure.

                    Tax compliance, public spending and happiness in Europe
                    [16 December 2021; summary only]
                    The design of policies aimed at improving individual, corporate and the well-being of nations needs them to incorporate elements of tax compliance as an objective that has economic and social implications. Individuals and corporates contribute to a fairer and more equitable society through compliance with tax obligations.

                    I don't know whether they ['high wealth individuals', and their accountants] are concerned [about using 'economic income' to calculate effective tax rates] or not. – LB

                    Maybe this excerpt from the Sapere report will help.

                    Although it is desirable to improve our understanding of both the equity and efficiency of the tax and benefit systems, it is also important to recognise the difficulties and considerable costs of obtaining the information required to develop a more detailed understanding of those effects.

                    Those costs include the potential unintended effects that such requests for information could have on savings and investments decisions (e.g. by creating a more uncertain environment for investment due to concerns that the government might be considering the introduction of comprehensive taxes on capital gains or wealth).

                    The reasons for concern about using 'economic income' to calculate the effective tax rates that the very wealthy 'labour' under is obvious.

                    Our results show that the average ETRs for the Project population, based on economic income, are significantly lower than the average personal taxable income ETR, of around 30%, for the Project population. When all sources of income and tax (except GST) are included, the family median ETR is 8.9% and the weighted-mean ETR is 9.8% (these are measures of the average ETR over the Project period).

                    Some wealthy individuals think the ETRs calculated using 'economic income' are problematic, and I agree with them.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      23 May 2023 at 1:21 pm

                      "So far you've taken issue with:"

                      Oh I've done more than that. At https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20-05-2023/#comment-1950815 I set out very clearly the basis for my criticism of IRD report. The invitation is open for you to address those points, not selectively.

                      "Elements of economic income are used in many countries for the purposes of taxing individuals. "

                      What elements? Specifically where and how is unearned income taxed that is not consistent with how we treat similar income in NZ?

                      "Unlike ETRs based on economic income, these ETRs do not comprehensively take account of untaxed sources of income, such as capital gains."

                      "The purpose of 'the project' is no mystery, "

                      You said:

                      "for all the huff and puff that "the IRD report is fundamentally about the fairness or otherwise [of] tax paid on income, not wealth", isn't it up to the IRD to say what the IRD report is fundamentally about?"

                      I answered you with a reference from the report itself.

                      "Some wealthy individuals think the ETRs calculated using 'economic income' are problematic, and I agree with them."

                      What is wealthy? Are these the 300 or so families who the report failed to recognise are actually taxed as individuals? If so. which ones? If not, who are these 'wealthy' people who are concerned? Michael Reddell doesn't appear to be wealthy.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      23 May 2023 at 1:36 pm

                      "Maybe this excerpt from the Sapere report will help."

                      Not really. The accountants will be rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a new and complex taxation regime.

                      The concerns about changes causing a reduction in investment are valid. When low decile income earners enjoy a negative ETR, and higher income earners are carrying an increasingly disproportionate share of the tax burden, money will leave the country. It's another reason the aforesaid accountants will be loving this.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    23 May 2023 at 2:25 pm

                    “The notion that people with trusts are rich pricks trying to avoid tax is a common misconception among left wingers.” – LB

                    Don’t know about “pricks”, but more likely rich than poor, surely?

                    What is wealthy? Are these the 300 or so families who the report failed to recognise are actually taxed as individuals? If so. which ones? If not, who are these 'wealthy' people who are concerned?

                    Hmm – maybe a mix of Kiwis, 'concerned' for different reasons?

                    For example, individuals in the 41 families who wouldn't cooperate with the IRD project, might be 'concerned' about over-taxation.

                    The big money up against Parker [27 April 2023]
                    Nearly 12 per cent (41) of the 352 families [each] with an estimated net worth of at least $20 million did not agree to respond even though the Tax Administration Act makes such surveys compulsory.

                    The survey started in November 2021, and the questioning was over by May last year.

                    As early as November 2021, there were reports that high-net-worth individuals were seeking legal advice to avoid having to participate.

                    At about the same time, substantial donations from some of the country’s wealthiest individuals began to flow to the National Party.

                    Inevitably it pitches the ordinary taxpayer against the very wealthy and National leader Christopher Luxon yesterday defended the ultra-wealthy. “It’s not the wealthy that are the problem here,” he said.

                    [Imagine that – National leader Luxon defending the ultra-wealthy – whatever next?!]

                    The IRD study found that the 311 high net-worth families had paid, on average, 8.9 per cent of their economic income (as distinct from their wages and salaries income) in tax.

                    While other wealthy Kiwis are concerned about under-taxation. You may not agree with wealthy Kiwis who want to pay more tax, but everyone can appreciate their point of view.

                    Group of wealthy New Zealanders ask to be taxed more in open letter to Government [11 May 2023]
                    A sobering report last month showed the wealthiest New Zealanders were paying taxes at half the rate of the average middle-class bracket.
                    …
                    In Germany, people who earn €277,826 (about NZ$479,000) or more pay a top tax rate of 45 percent. In comparison, the Netherlands' top income tax rate of nearly 50 percent kicks in far lower at €73,031 (NZ$126,000).

                    New Zealand's top income tax rate is 39 percent on $180,000 and above.

                    90 wealthy Kiwis sign open letter asking to pay more tax [11 May 2023]
                    Some of the wealthiest Kiwis in Aotearoa know they pay lower tax rates than most – and have signed a letter explicitly asking to pay more.

                    The letter acknowledges ongoing issues that "will require a bigger tax contribution from those who can afford it," including future-proofing infrastructure from natural disasters such as Cyclone Gabrielle, and helping fund social services at a time where one in seven kiwi children live in poverty.

                    It is in direct response to two reports released by Inland Revenue and Treasury on April 26, which found that 311 of Aotearoa's richest families pay an effective tax rate of 9.4%, less than half of the 20.2% rate paid by the general population.

                    Group of wealthy people present an open letter to the government asking to be forced to pay more tax
                    [11 May 2023]

                    Diana Crossan, a former high level public servant and ex-Retirement Commissioner, is a spokesperson for the campaign is. She said the New Zealand tax system doesn't collect enough money.

                    "We collect in our taxes somewhere around 32% of GDP and in European countries, Germany for example, it is 38%, the Netherlands 40%.

                    "We just don't pay the same amount of taxes as they do in other countries and we expect to have the same health system, and the same roads, the same clear rivers, the same housing and so on."

                    Wealthy New Zealanders say they want to pay more tax [11 May 2023]

                    Les Mills executive director Phillip Mills said the current tax system was “broken”.

                    “We’ve been focused too much for too long on paying lower and lower taxes. We need to focus more on having a world-class education system and not having people living in poverty and children coming to school not having enough to eat.”

                    Mills said wealthy people should be paying more than they were. He would be in favour of both a capital gains tax and wealth tax.

                    He says it is “bad for the economy to be tax-advantaging asset classes like residential property”.

                    Sir Ian Taylor said there was so much talk about tax being a burden and not enough people thought about the benefits it could deliver for better access to healthcare, education and infrastructure.

                    Tax has been a topic of discussion in recent weeks following the Inland Revenue department’s research which found the wealthiest New Zealanders paid 8.9% tax on their incomes, on average.

                    A separate released by Treasury found that the country’s wealthiest 1% own more than a quarter of the country’s wealth.

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      23 May 2023 at 3:10 pm

                      "Don’t about “pricks”, but more likely rich than poor, surely?"

                      Somewhere in between.

                      "The top five percent of trusts with some taxable income in the 2021 tax year accounted for 78 percent of all trustee income ($13.3 billion out of $17.1 billion). "

                      Budget 2023: Government cracks down on trustees, increases tax rate | Newshub

                      As others have noted here, most trusts are family trusts, set up as vehicles to protect assets for future generations. The 'rich prick with a trust' attutide is alive and well, and ignorant.

                      "For example, individuals in the 41 families who wouldn't cooperate with the IRD project, might be 'concerned' about over-taxation."

                      Might be. Might be concerned at the government using (to quote Michael Reddell) the "coercive powers of the state" to prepare a politically motivated attack on success.

                      "Some of the wealthiest Kiwis in Aotearoa know they pay lower tax rates than most – and have signed a letter explicitly asking to pay more."

                      1. There's nothing stopping them. If any of them are reading this, the Treasury bank account is 03-0049-0000327-25. Fill your boots.
                      2. Now, how does one get on that 'letter'? Not by being wealthy. It's an Oxfam/Tax Justice Aotearoa publicity stunt. If you're interested you too can self identify as wealthy at An Open Letter on Tax (sharingwealth.nz).
                      3. So let's see who's on that list. Robyn Malcolm – net worth $1m (according to Robyn Malcolm Net Worth 2023: Money, Salary, Bio – CelebsMoney). My mothers house in Auckland is worth that, so shall I get her on the list?
                      4. Another name on that list is Glenn Barclay.

                      "Tax Justice Spokesperson Glenn Barclay is one of them.

                      He says he's not extremely wealthy, but is still probably in the top 10 percent of income earners."

                      Tax Justice Spokesperson among the 97 wealthy Kiwis calling for higher taxes (newstalkzb.co.nz)

                      Huh? He signed the letter of 'wealthy kiwi's' but isn't wealthy?

                      We can scratch deeper if you want.

                      Edit – oh this is beautiful. At the foot of the list are two buttons to click if you want to donate. Not, BTW to the IRD, but to either Oxfam or TJA.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    23 May 2023 at 6:28 pm

                    "Don’t [know] about “pricks”, but more likely rich than poor, surely?" – DMK

                    Somewhere in between. – LB

                    "The top five percent of trusts with some taxable income in the 2021 tax year accounted for 78 percent of all trustee income ($13.3 billion out of $17.1 billion)."

                    "Somewhere in between" – cute. So what's the value of income from trusts set up by Kiwis living in poverty? Take your time.

                    The 'rich prick with a trust' attutide [sic] is alive and well, and ignorant.

                    You seem very prickly wink

                    "For example, individuals in the 41 families who wouldn't cooperate with the IRD project, might be 'concerned' about over-taxation." – DMK

                    Might be. Might be concerned at the government using (to quote Michael Reddell) the "coercive powers of the state" to prepare a politically motivated attack on success. – LB

                    Is there a practical diff between concerns about over-taxation, and concern about politically motivated attacks on financial success?

                    Those such as Seymour, Luxon and yourself, who leap to the defence of poor put-upon wealthy Kiwis, no doubt have the purest of motivations. It must be truely awful being a wealthy Kiwi, when so many people want to tax your wealth.

                    https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/16-08-2022/the-side-eyes-two-new-zealands-the-table

                    The point is, we can improve. And the starting point for that is to get over the awkwardness and start acknowledging the problem.
                    (Cough Cough)
                    "Hey, aaah… do you reckon we could pass something down for these guys over here?"

                    Some Kiwis simply can't stomach even the thought of contributing more money to our Govt by way of tax – ‘unfair‘, they cry, Unfair!

                    Buy up – how New Zealand’s rich are spending their money

                    Why poverty in New Zealand is everyone's concern
                    Liang describes poverty as a "heritable condition" that perpetuates and amplifies through generations: "It is also not hard to see how individual poverty flows into communities and society, with downstream effects on economics, crime and health, as well as many other systems. Loosen one strand and everything else unravels."

                    A Kete Half Empty
                    Poverty is your problem, it is everyone's problem, not just those who are in poverty. – Rebecca, a child from Te Puru

                    We can scratch deeper if you want.

                    If you like, but is there any need? Various motives are clear enough. For many wealthy Kiwis, current tax settings are barely tolerable – they already feel over-taxed, and inequality is certainly not their problem. Other wealthy Kiwis take a different view – maybe they're all silly, confused, dishonest, faulty and shoddy?

                    A taxing exercise for NZ’s wealthiest 0.01 percent
                    [28 April 2023]
                    Tax specialists OliverShaw published a report last week finding the more New Zealanders earned, the more they paid in tax – that those earning above $180,000 made up 21.2 percent of taxpayers and paid 68.5 percent of income tax in the 2021 tax year.

                    But I call BS. For a start, it selectively omitted the impact of GST and excises, which weigh more heavily on those on lower incomes. An earlier IRD report concluded the wealthiest Kiwis paid an effective tax rate of less than 12 percent.

                    Newshub-Reid Research poll: Kiwis support the Government introducing wealth tax [17 May 2023]

                    • Liberty Belle …
                      23 May 2023 at 7:35 pm

                      ""Somewhere in between" – cute."

                      Somewhere in between rich and poor does not include people in poverty, does it?

                      "Is there a practical diff between concerns about over-taxation, and concern about politically motivated attacks on financial success?"

                      Of course there is. For example, I'm concerned about both, but for different reasons. I'm concerned about high income earners paying a disproportionate share of tax, because NZ desperately needs investment. I'm concerned about politically motivated attacks on financial success because they are part of an attitude of mediocracy that is prevalent in NZ.

                      "If you like, but is there any need? "

                      Well that depends on you. You posited the idea that this letter was the work of 'wealthy' NZ'ers, which is clearly untrue. Doesn't that concern you?

          • mikesh 2.2.1.2.5
            20 May 2023 at 11:04 pm

            The trustee can distribute, to the beneficiaries, as much, or as little, of the trust's income as he chooses. Only undistributed income is taxed at the trust rate: formerly 33%, now 39%. Distributed income is taxed at the beneficiary's rate, which can be as low as 10.5%.

            • Liberty Belle 2.2.1.2.5.1
              20 May 2023 at 11:42 pm

              "Only undistributed income is taxed at the trust rate: formerly 33%, now 39%."

              Yes, that's what I've been saying. In my experience most family trusts distribute all of the income annually already. (Many of those are below the 39% threshold). Perversely, if this tax rate change prompts even more to fully distribute, and to beneficiaries on tax rates lower than 33%, it's entirely possible the government won't draw anywhere near the level of additional taxation they are forecasting.

              • Shanreagh …
                21 May 2023 at 10:32 am

                All of this is quite true LB.

                But think of the useful mental health outlet this thread has provided for the 'its not fair' brigade who lump all people with trusts into the category of rich pricks buying mega lots of houses.

    • gsays 2.3
      20 May 2023 at 10:13 pm

      I've found that those who engage in trust's often are lacking in trust.

  3. joe90 3
    20 May 2023 at 12:34 pm

    Forced birther poured $120k of his own money into an effort to force a recount of a referendum affirming abortion rights, forcing him to cheap-out on the airworthiness of the light aircraft he was rebuilding. Which then crashed and killed him.

    https://www.kansas.com/news/local/news-local-obituaries/article275501041.html

    • Subliminal 3.1
      20 May 2023 at 6:23 pm

      Well, thats peanuts compared to whats coming.

      A few months before the mid terms…(a) Chicago billionaire had gifted anti-abortion Supreme Court fixer Leonard Leo the largest known tranche of dark money in US history: $1.6 billion

      The article goes on to say that that is enough money to fund two of the hugely influential conservative Heritage Foundations plus another sizeable organisation without touching the principle.

      Leo is a proud "Knight of the Order of Malta" and his long career has been motivated by a fanatical opposition to women's rights to reproductive choice

      • joe90 3.1.1
        20 May 2023 at 7:28 pm

        What's coming for tens of millions of women is a return to the 19thC.

        Directors of women’s health care services at Idaho hospitals are bracing for what’s next: 75 of 117 Idaho OB-GYNs recently surveyed by the Idaho Coalition for Safe Reproductive Health Care said they were considering leaving the state. Of those, nearly 100% — 73 of 75 — cited Idaho’s restrictive abortion laws.

        An exodus could affect broader medical coverage for women who rely on OB-GYNs for routine and urgent gynecological care unrelated to pregnancy, like menstrual disorders, endometriosis, and pelvic pain.

        Idaho is one of 15 states that have implemented strict abortion laws since last year’s Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. And while there is no official nationwide count yet, anecdotal evidence shows that women’s health specialists from states where abortion is criminalized are beginning to relocate to places like Washington state, which has strong abortion rights laws.

        https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/after-idahos-strict-abortion-ban-ob-gyns-stage-a-quick-exodus/

  4. Alan 4
    20 May 2023 at 1:18 pm

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132087748/budget-2023-grant-robertsons-budget-has-one-marker-who-matters-adrian-orr

    Yep, save maybe $100-$200 per year at the pharmacy but your mortgage payments go up massively.

    And pity the renters who will inevitably pay more as a consequence of this.

    • Bearded Git 4.1
      20 May 2023 at 1:29 pm

      Alan-When a cyclone causes 10 billion plus expenses that need fixing asap it is not possible to cut government expenditure unless you are proposing mother of all budget cuts to benefits and other payments that go to the less well off.

    • alwyn 4.2
      20 May 2023 at 1:51 pm

      If you are getting prescriptions for drugs that are affected by Robertson's proposal there is not a single household that needs to be paying more than $100/year.

      An entire household can't save more than $100/year under the scheme even if you were a family with 6 kids and were getting 20 prescriptions/month. Every single one after the first 20 in a year is free,

    • Muttonbird 4.3
      20 May 2023 at 6:58 pm

      Rent goes up regardless of economic conditions. It doesn't matter if it's pharmacy fees or cheap offshore labour, rent always and inexorably goes up.

      One thing the landlord class is very good at is extracting every last cent out of tenants, for profit. Pity they are not so good at providing housing safe from illness and fire. It's business, you know!

      It's all good, renters are used to being abused as second class citizens.

  5. joe90 5
    20 May 2023 at 2:15 pm

    The whales know. And they hate us.

    Orcas have attacked and sunk a third boat off the Iberian coast of Europe, and experts now believe the behavior is being copied by the rest of the population.

    Three orcas (Orcinus orca), also known as killer whales, struck the yacht on the night of May 4 in the Strait of Gibraltar, off the coast of Spain, and pierced the rudder. "There were two smaller and one larger orca," skipper Werner Schaufelberger told the German publication Yacht. "The little ones shook the rudder at the back while the big one repeatedly backed up and rammed the ship with full force from the side."

    https://www.livescience.com/animals/orcas/orcas-have-sunk-3-boats-in-europe-and-appear-to-be-teaching-others-to-do-the-same-but-why

    • tWiggle 5.1
      21 May 2023 at 1:28 am

      Yes Joe90, snap. I had noticed two or three reports of whale attacks in the past six months, and was wondering whether it was Nature fighting back with tooth and fin against humans and that global warming shit.

      I have read elsewhere a story where orcas and humans co-operated over decades in fish drives in a harbour somewhere on the Canadian west coast, I think. Until the humans stuffed it up one year somehow, and the pact disintegrated.

      A fabulous sight one autumn afternoon years ago was watching a pod of orcas playing around in the Waitematā harbour.

  6. aj 6
    20 May 2023 at 5:01 pm

    So many decades, but little has changed. Just like Cash and Kristofferson wise words in the Paul Holmes clip a few days ago.

    Happy Birthday to the great Malcolm X, whose words are as important today as when he first spoke them. THREAD WITH CLIPS.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1659583477769990146.html

  7. The Chairman 7
    20 May 2023 at 6:08 pm

    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's. Presidential Campaign takes a kindness approach.

    Whereas, Trump takes a strength approach.

    • Ad 7.1
      20 May 2023 at 7:19 pm

      Sure if you vote by numbers of sanctimoneous abstract nouns, go right ahead.

      On the other hand if you like policy, RFK JR:

      – Lobbied Congress to enable parents to evade vaccinating their children

      https://people.com/health/jessica-biel-says-shes-not-against-vaccinations/

      – Has a Non Profit called Child's Health Defence which paid for more than half of the ads on Facebook lying about vaccines, and was then barred from instagram

      https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/us/robert-f-kennedy-jr-instagram-covid-vaccine.html

      – Published a book titled The Real Anthony Fauci, accusing the doctor of promoting "a historic coup d'etat against Western democracy."

      – Promoted a documentary falsely claiming that vaccines give you autism

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/10/the-facts-about-vaccines-autism-and-robert-f-kennedy-jr-s-conspiracy-theory/

      I'm sure he's done a lot of good particularly in environmental defences of rivers, and of course he's younger than Joe Biden.

      But … nah

      • The Chairman 7.1.1
        21 May 2023 at 9:18 am

        I don't vote in the US election.

        I was merely interested in the two different campaign approaches.

      • Shanreagh 7.1.2
        21 May 2023 at 10:34 am

        RFK Jnr is a nutter. So different campaign approaches for the same fruit cake 'winner'

    • joe90 7.2
      20 May 2023 at 8:04 pm

      A deep dive into Jr's dangerous, dishonest lunacy.

      /

      The only ‘herd immunity’ we need is against abysmal candidates like RFK Jr. He has spent decades as a professional liar and is not the kind of person who should be anywhere near power.

      […]

      Let’s establish at the outset that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is someone who lies constantly in ways that seriously endanger the public. In fact, his lies have probably directly caused people to get sick, and possibly die.

      To those who accept the scientific consensus around the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, someone like Kennedy can appear to be a mere “nut” or “crank.” But it’s important to understand that anti-vaxxers like Kennedy aren’t just “crazy.” They’re skilled manipulators of statistics who are great at fooling people using pseudoscience. Waving them away as

      https://www.currentaffairs.org/2023/05/rfk-jr-is-a-lying-crank-posing-as-a-progressive-alternative

      • joe90 7.2.1
        20 May 2023 at 8:09 pm

        And there's always the possibility that Jr's a player in one of Roger Stone's rat-fucking schemes.

      • The Chairman 7.2.2
        21 May 2023 at 9:56 am

        Thanks, Joe.

        Seems some have a bee in their bonnet re his vaccine stance.

        Nevertheless, it also seems he's polling rather well regardless.

        • Shanreagh 7.2.2.1
          21 May 2023 at 10:37 am

          Trump is too, so not sure of the relevance. Both crazy in different ways so 'you takes your chances and you makes your choice' between whatever flavour you like.

          • The Chairman 7.2.2.1.1
            21 May 2023 at 11:08 am

            Yes, I've seen that Trump is also polling well.

            I wonder which approach American voters will favour?

            • Shanreagh 7.2.2.1.1.1
              21 May 2023 at 7:26 pm

              As I have long told my US cousin the choice of the President of the US is far too important to be given to Americans…… when Trump got in we agreed that anyone other than Americans, preferably NZers, should have been given the vote for the US Pres & that way they might have avoided Trump. She's a Democrat but who knows, she's not an anti vaxxer.

              Her father on the other hand used to tell all his family here in NZ that he would be coming back to NZ each time a Labour Govt got in, in the UK. But of course he never did.

        • joe90 7.2.2.2
          21 May 2023 at 11:25 am

          a bee in their bonnet

          Anti-vaccine stances are directly responsible for the return of vaccine-preventable diseases that disproportionately affect children.

          Those who oppose a crank magnet who poses an existential threat to millions of children have a little more than a bee in their bonnet.

          /

          • The Chairman 7.2.2.2.1
            21 May 2023 at 11:47 am

            Is it really the anti-vaccine stance that is responsible, or could it be the failure to convincingly refute them?

            Maybe those who oppose a crank magnet should be reconsidering their own tactics?