Tax cuts for tax cheats

Written By: - Date published: 7:39 am, January 22nd, 2010 - 55 comments
Categories: class war, tax - Tags:

The Right’s main justification for the highway robbery of cutting the top tax rate to 30% then funding it by increasing rents and charging the 78% of people who earn under $48,000 2.5% more GST is: ‘Half of the richest 100 avoid paying the top rate anyway. May as well reward them and all the ones who don’t rip us off massive tax cuts’.

I’ve come up with a slogan for their campaign:

“Tax cuts for tax cheats”

Got a ring to it, eh?

55 comments on “Tax cuts for tax cheats ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Mike 1
    22 January 2010 at 7:58 am

    It’s a 2.2% increase to GST –
    $100 product with 12.5% GST = $112.50, with 15% is $115 = 2.2% increase.

  2. Zetetic 2
    22 January 2010 at 8:04 am

    Nope. It’s a 2.2% increase to GST inclusive prices.

    12.5% to 15% is a 2.5% increase. Like when National goes from 50% to 45% after tapes expose its secret agenda it loses 5%.

    Or I could call it a 20% increase if you like.

  3. tc 3
    22 January 2010 at 8:10 am

    Totally predictable from the ‘born to rule’ set…….meaningful tax reform takes guts/vision/intelligence….qualities NACT lack across the board.

    Just like the last 2 nat gov’ts here we go driving more wedges between the ‘have too much’ and ‘have nots’…….gutless but true to their ideology, more for us…who cares about the rest.

    • Bed Rater 3.1
      22 January 2010 at 9:12 am

      Its a bit rich prattling on about idealogies, while at the same time using the term “have too much”

      Who are you to say if someone has too much?

    • Kiwigirl 3.2
      22 January 2010 at 12:15 pm

      What are you TALKING about?! God I am so sick of all this lofty self-righteous left rubbish. The gap between the have and have nots has increased due to the global economic environment and our own poor government policies – this gap increased enormously under Labour as they aided the rich to remain rich just as much as National did and will do. Have a look at the credentials of both party’s MPs as well as their party presidents – there really is not much difference between the two. Labour was an enabler for 9 years when it come to the rich getting away with structuring their businesses so that they did not have to pay what they should. These are not a new issue. If you want to get ahead, get off your ass and work. Start at the supermarket check-outs, work your way up until you become a supervisor, then a manager then become a manager yourself, build up your resume and before you know it you will be able to apply for a job that pays well.

  4. Jenny 4
    22 January 2010 at 8:13 am

    As thousands queue for jobs.

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/story/national/10621612/

    And the MSM whinge about work shy beneficiaries.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3243349/Nine-beneficiaries-on-dole-for-more-than-20-years

    And if Bennet can abuse and harrass the small minority of mainly older and isolated individuals off the dole and into the gutters, will it help?

    Maybe. By terrorising the unemployed, who have had their livelihoods stolen by the recession, Paula Bennet may be able to free up funds so the Nats, can give tax cuts to their rich mates. You remember them, the ones whose irresponsibility and greed brought on the recession.

    • Kiwigirl 4.1
      22 January 2010 at 12:08 pm

      Who was in charge for the 9 years that the irresponsible rich were allowed to run this country into the ground by buying up our first homes then renting them back to us at exorbitant prices?

  5. big bruv 5
    22 January 2010 at 8:18 am

    When you have an unfair tax system that penalises those who work hard in favour of those who do not you will always have those who look to lessen the amount that is stolen from them by the government.

    Lower and flatten the tax rate, increase GST and stop spending more than we have on bludgers.

    Most of who you chaps laughingly call “the rich” are happy to pay some tax, what they object to is being hammered by Labour and the National socialist party to fund those who simply cannot be bothered trying to improve their lot in life.

    • Marty G 5.1
      22 January 2010 at 8:22 am

      “2500 people who yesterday waited up to seven hours to apply for one of 150 jobs at a new South Auckland supermarket ” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10621612

      yeah, slackers eh big bruv? Your tax cheat heroes wouldn’t get out of bed for the money these people are willing to queue all day for a chance to earn.

      • big bruv 5.1.1
        22 January 2010 at 10:24 am

        Only 2500?

        I heard there are record numbers of unemployed in South Auckland, if that is the case then there should have been far more than 2500 waiting in line.

        It just proves that our benefit system is far to generous.

    • Bored 5.2
      22 January 2010 at 9:34 am

      In your ham fisted one eyed way you sum up your reality very well. People of your ilk believe in “self improvement’ which is gained by achieving a competitive advantage over your fellow citizens. This “virtuous “scenario is the basis of an exploitative mindset, it translates to “what is mine is mine, and I want yours too’. The casualties of this are then labeled “bludgers’. Nice one BBruv, your monicker says it all.

    • Kiwigirl 5.3
      22 January 2010 at 12:40 pm

      You’re generalising a tad, but I agree with your sentiment – the really rich have never paid their way, not under Labour and not now. It is those of us who work hard & earn a good living that have to pay for those who can not pay for themselves and those who refuse to pay for themselves. I don’t agree with National lowering the trust tax rate and in fact, I think they should increase it – do a swap with the personal rate so that those of us who are apparently ‘rich’ but yet can’t afford things like accountants, second homes, the trip to Europe aren’t picking up the ‘real’ rich pricks tab. As for your assumption that all those on lower incomes are lazy….do I really have to comment? A bit of compassion for your fellow man would go a long way!

  6. PT 6
    22 January 2010 at 8:23 am

    wow, so mature and such an insightful analysis. labour good, national bad z.

    how about “tax cuts for tax PAYERS”

    see slogans are easy but not useful for debate

    • Zetetic 6.1
      22 January 2010 at 8:35 am

      “how about “tax cuts for tax PAYERS'”

      I’m a taxpayer too. I don’t get a tax cut from this. And I don’t cheat to reduce my taxes.

      The Right’s justification is that they’re cheating anyway. So they may as well get cuts.

      • Kiwigirl 6.1.1
        22 January 2010 at 12:43 pm

        you benefited from the last round, let someone else have a turn eh – esp since the group that will benefit the most from the proposed personal tax cuts are actually professionals and small business. what do want this country to become? one of just big business, low wage & beneficiaries? Sounds like USA – no thanks!

    • lprent 6.2
      22 January 2010 at 11:57 am

      Yeah, and I notice that you provided zero analysis about why your position is the one that should be followed.

      “so mature and such an insightful analysis.” idiot = Troll, unable to use brains because made of solid rock. If you want debate then provide some material for other people to dissect.

  7. gitmo 7
    22 January 2010 at 8:30 am

    Interesting piece here by Hickey on some parts of the proposed tax reforms.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10621483

  8. tc 8
    22 January 2010 at 8:33 am

    Agree with Big bruv “Most of who you chaps laughingly call “the rich’ are happy to pay some taxpay “……exactly some but not their fair share to enable equitable distribution.

    Of course putting aside the sterling hard work of the Hotchins/Reynolds/Ellis of this world who thoroughly deserve their rewards for all that hard work.

  9. ieuan 9
    22 January 2010 at 8:38 am

    Another moronic comment from a writer at the Standard about taxes.

    Honestly is it impossible for you to talk about taxes without descending into name calling of higher income earners?

    • TightyRighty 9.1
      22 January 2010 at 8:49 am

      envy, this site feeds on it. as far as any contributor on this site is concerned anyone who earns more than the average must have down-trodden someone to get there and justice must be done. Hard-work? pfff it’s just a myth apparently, same as a lifetime benny who wants to get off the dole.

      • Zetetic 9.1.1
        22 January 2010 at 8:58 am

        I’m not remotely envious of tax cheats. I just don’t like cheats.

        Seems you do.

        Your envy riff is what you always fall back on when you have no real response. It’s a sign of weakness. Makes me smile when you pull it out first comment.

        • TightyRighty 9.1.1.1
          22 January 2010 at 9:09 am

          I’m talking about high income and high net worth individuals, i don’t like tax cheats. i have to pay more because of them. though i can understand why it’s done when the punitive measures towards high income earners introduced by the las labour government are unfair. and smack of envy. i have plenty of responses zetetic. I just think that endlessly bashing those who earn more than what you would consider “fair” is tiresome, and smacks of envy. you have no real basis to back such bashing up except for th fact that you feel that higher earners should pay more. why? so you don’t have to.

          • Zetetic 9.1.1.1.1
            22 January 2010 at 9:18 am

            “you have no real basis to back such bashing up except for th fact that you feel that higher earners should pay more”

            No. I look at the other half of the top 100 and all the other higher earners who don’t cheat. Don’t think its fair on them or on us to permit these cheats to cheat. Even worse to reward them with a tax cut.

        • indiana 9.1.1.2
          22 January 2010 at 9:13 am

          Cheating is when you deliberately break the rules, for example a hand ball in football that allows your team to score. If the rules allow you to reduce your tax burden LEGALLY, then that is not cheating. I don’t think you should confuse the two. There is also nothing morally wrong with applying the rules to reduce your tax burden, as these rules apply to any income levels.

          • Zetetic 9.1.1.2.1
            22 January 2010 at 9:19 am

            It’s cheating. It’s exploiting a loophole. That loophole might be legal but it’s not the intention of the law and its not a loophole every can exploit. It’s cheating.

            • indiana 9.1.1.2.1.1
              22 January 2010 at 9:23 am

              then have a go at the people that made the rules and allowed the loopholes to exist.

              • Zetetic …
                22 January 2010 at 9:26 am

                Yeah. I want the loopholes closed to stop the cheats.

                The Right’s answer is to reward the cheats by dropping their tax so they get to pay less tax without even having to hire a tax accountant to help them cheat.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                22 January 2010 at 9:30 am

                So, if you were say, a catholic, and did what ever the hell you liked in the way of murder theft rape, knowing that you felt bad about it, and that it was wrong, but also knowing that your genuine remorse would eventually catch up with you in the confessional, it’s all good. You can just blame Jesus.

      • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2
        22 January 2010 at 11:16 am

        No envy here. That’s just another delusion of the RWNJ.

    • Zetetic 9.2
      22 January 2010 at 8:59 am

      ieuan. Not calling all higher income earners names. Just the cheats who leave you and me to pick up the bill.

  10. aj 10
    22 January 2010 at 8:47 am

    Key last night on TV news, ‘we need to bring the top tax rate down to where Trusts are taxed to stop people sheltering income in trusts’

    Q. Why not just increase Trust tax to current personal tax levels? and just how much tax is lost through people doing this anyway?

    Other matters on the backburner, probably slipping into a black hole..

    What happened to ‘north of $50’ for the average worker?
    What about the cycleway?
    What about raising incomes to catch Australia?

  11. big bruv 11
    22 January 2010 at 8:50 am

    TC

    The so called rich pay far more than their fair share.

    As for “equitable distribution” there is something wrong with a society that says to people that you don’t need to work hard or bother learning because we will steal it from those who do and hand it over with no conditions attached.

  12. vto 12
    22 January 2010 at 8:51 am

    Funny thing is I don’t think I have come across a single person who has not at some point cheated on tax – claiming something not related to biz, doing a cash job, using biz stuff for personal use, etc.

    Seriously, I would say the vast vast majority of people have.

    What’s that saying about throwing stones when living in glasshouses?

    • indiana 12.1
      22 January 2010 at 9:16 am

      Yep that includes all those people that accept “cash jobs” and service workers who accept tips….do they declare their income to the IRD….nope! But they are not Cheats according to Z as they are not rich!

      • Zetetic 12.1.1
        22 January 2010 at 9:25 am

        Have a sense of scale.

        Student takes $50 cash for half a day for doing some digging or knocking back a garden for some old lady. Doesn’t pay the $6.25 tax. Vs 50 of the richest people in NZ avoiding hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax.

        • indiana 12.1.1.1
          22 January 2010 at 9:36 am

          does the law not apply equally to everyone?

          • Bright Red 12.1.1.1.1
            22 January 2010 at 10:31 am

            yep. And the more serious the cheat, the worse it is.

            If I flick a guy’s eye in the street probably nothing will happen. A warning from a cop at worst. If I beat him to a pulp, that’s a different story.

        • vto 12.1.1.2
          22 January 2010 at 9:38 am

          scale? scale?

          a cheat is a cheat zet.

          sheesh, talk about malleable morality.

          200,000 students at $10 cheating equals $2,000,000. In one morning’s gardening. There’s some scale for you.

          at what stage (or scale) does a person become a cheat then? and how is the rest of nz meant to know whether their cheating is deemed ok cheating or bad cheating? in your own crossed eyes of course..

          • Lanthanide 12.1.1.2.1
            22 January 2010 at 12:13 pm

            The answer, vto, is not ‘scale’, as Zet said. The answer is actually ‘persistence and scale’.

            If someone ‘cheats’ on one-off occasions and doesn’t make a habit of it, then it probably doesn’t need to be dealt with and a blind eye can be turned. Do you know that the IRD actually says that if you calculate the tax you owe based on full income that may not have been reported to them, and it comes out to less than $200, they actually tell you not to pay it because it is more hassle than it is worth?

            That is not the same thing as someone who hides all of their income in a trust and avoids thousands of dollars of tax habitually.

        • vto 12.1.1.3
          22 January 2010 at 9:40 am

          and i think you will find that those 50 richest dont actually cheat but instead ‘structure’ affairs according to laws of the land. quite different from your law-breaking gardener.

    • scotty 12.2
      22 January 2010 at 9:31 am

      yip I agree vto,tax cheats are probably very common within your circle of frightened righties.

  13. todd 13
    22 January 2010 at 9:26 am

    Never underestimate a humans ability to rort a system for their own benefit.IMO 99% of humans react the same way as others.
    Like students quickly learnt how to rort the student interest free loan while living overseas by paying no interest,my son and ALL of his mates in Ausy pay no interest,legally.Thats always been the trouble with introducing new laws,watch how humans will make it work for them double quick,always 3 steps ahead of the lawmakers.It will NEVER change.

    • Lanthanide 13.1
      22 January 2010 at 12:15 pm

      Being that you had to live in the country for 183 days out of the year to qualify for the interest write off, I’d be interested to hear how they are doing it.

  14. vidiot 14
    22 January 2010 at 9:28 am

    So these tax cheats would be the 13,000 people detailed here – http://www.thestandard.org.nz/33-nonsense/ & http://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/0/e/0ea93380403150a4af59ffedfbf6dc8d/income-distribution-2001-to-2008.xls

    That according to IRD earn more than 250K per annum and pay on average a tax bill of around $197.7K per annum ?

    Interesting to also see that the 8.6% of people in the ‘rich prick’ 70K+ tax bracket contribute over 40% of the tax income. But wait, the tax dodgers aren’t in that bracket are they ? So it is the ordinary NZ’rs carrying the can.

    • Bored 14.1
      22 January 2010 at 9:44 am

      Cheating tax is one thing, but cheating is only another symptom highlighted by the ability of certain sectors of the community to garner excessive amounts of taxable incomes etc. If these “rich pricks’ did not command such high incomes they would not have to be taxed so much. Let’s face it with CEOs rorting fellow workers in their corporations by ridiculous factors (getting paid 30 times the average for example) why the hell should we not return the rort through tax?

      A simpler and more equitable arrangement would be more equitable pay rates and compressed differentials between top and bottom incomes. More of us could then become “rich pricks”, and hammer cheats within our midst.

      • indiana 14.1.1
        22 January 2010 at 9:56 am

        You can become a rich prick…..if you just take the time to make an effort….CEO’s don’t get offered those absurd salaries just because they “smiled and waved” during the interview.

        • Bored 14.1.1.1
          22 January 2010 at 10:07 am

          Hi Indie, FYI I sit on a number of boards, own two businesses. And when we go over remuneration reviews it becomes increasingly evident that the returns to our businesses from “high value” individuals have become more and more divorced from their real utility. I am always really happy to reward risk takers who return results. Cant say that I see much risk taken compared to rewards by the heads of corporations in NZ such as Telecom and the banks. This in turn diminishes what individual employees have to contribute to keeping the rest of business running and results in higher costs to me.

    • Bright Red 14.2
      22 January 2010 at 10:29 am

      vidiot. No-one said they’re all tax cheats. In fact, only half of the top 100 are tax cheats.

    • Draco T Bastard 14.3
      22 January 2010 at 11:29 am

      That according to IRD earn more than 250K per annum and pay on average a tax bill of around $197.7K per annum ?

      Ah, taking the average as the amount paid by everyone in that group. Another delusional right wing spin job.

      • vidiot 14.3.1
        22 January 2010 at 11:44 am

        Well how else can you interpret that data ? The known information was xx,xxx people in that bracket (by IRD records), they paid xxx,xxxx,xxxx,xxx in tax. The average paid per person was xxx,xxx in that group.

        Yes, a person earning $250K would only pay $86K in tax (34% of gross), but you can’t dispute that the average in that group was over twice that figure.

    • Fence sitter 14.4
      22 January 2010 at 4:53 pm

      FINALLY someone gets that those in the top tier are not always rich, that they are ordinary people picking up the tab for the poor, the lazy, the ones who make bad choices & don’t live within their means & the rich pricks that do anything possible to pay their fair share. Reading the blog’s on Labour’s Red Alert and Facebook’s anti increase in GST group shows there is a lot of ignorance out there and a lot of the green eyed monster. If you want to get ahead you have to do more than a 9-5 job working 40 hours.

  15. Idiot/Savant 15
    22 January 2010 at 10:19 am

    You forgot the cut in the corporate rate, which is a reward to tax-cheating Aussie banks.

Links to post