"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...
"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 ...
Arena Williams has been caught telling porkies about that. Labour MP Arena Williams fact-checked by Twitter community note over post about scrapping of prescription fee | Newshub
Who are these 'squat poppies'? Care to name one?
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.
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 ...
Most people with trusts are not rich. Budget 2023: No ‘Major’ New Taxes But $80b More Tax Revenue | Newsroom "78 percent of all trustee income is earned by the top 5 percent of trusts – that’s $13.3b out of $17.1b." Trusts exist these days mainly for asset...
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 ...
Agreed.
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%.
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 ...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
It's amazing what you can do when you're prepared to run $7bn budget deficits and continue to blow your own capital and operating forecasts. Mind you, the gamers will be happy.
Just mild hyperbole. Welfare: A Hand Up (act.org.nz)
I'll take the independent research over subjective reckons. With media bias and climate science.
"Are you sure about that? " No, it was a completely weird comparison. Covid brain, for my sins. "The point is that regulatory regimes can swing from perceived heavy-handedness ("harsh" and burdensome, or appropriately cautious – depending on your PoV) to (...
"that media coverage of NZ politics in toto doesn't have an obvious bias." Well that's all about perception. And we'll see that in different and subjective ways.
"Nearly 7 years after the tragic consequences of Campylobacter contamination in Havelock North's water supply, it seems odd (to me) that some (many?) Cantabrians are so vehemently opposed to the chlorination of Christchurch's water supply. What's the story...
I have asserted with evidence. Suck it up.
Here's how the first study was prepared. MediaBias: How it Works. Read it, you might learn something. The second study, which you've avoided addressing, "is a collaboration of academics from more than 120 countries." Worlds of Journalism Study 2.0. ...
These aren't examples of "Regulators are often viewed as "being a bit heavy handed" prior to a failure." Quite the opposite.
Christchurch told to chlorinate its drinking water after bid for exemption | RNZ News The water regulator has told Chch to chlorinate its water against it's wishes. I'm picking up on TSimithfields point that the Council " spent a fortune upgrading our ...
Absolutely. Although it seems that unless you get above 5ppm, Chlronation has little impact on Campylobacter. (PDF) Effect of Drinking Water Chlorination on Campylobacter spp. Colonization of Broilers (researchgate.net)
What 'past failures' in Christchurch are you referring to?
It is local. It's the water regulator that isn't.
Recent Comments