Tim Watkin slams tax cuts for tax cheats

16 comments on “Tim Watkin slams tax cuts for tax cheats ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Herodotus 1

   1 February 2010 at 12:43 pm

   You could almost apply Winny Churchills “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so few to so many” !!!
2. Santi 2

   1 February 2010 at 1:08 pm

   Tim who?

   I want my tax cut and I want it now!
   • Bright Red 2.1

     1 February 2010 at 1:18 pm

     You got two rounds of tax cuts, one from Labour and one from National. Unless you’re not on a high income of course, in which case you just got one from Labour.

     Have those tax cuts solved all your problems? Do you think another one will?

     And remember, these are tax reforms, shifting the way tax is raised, it doesn’t equal a cut in total tax paid by you as an individual unless you are on a very high income and don’t own a lot of property.
   • lprent 2.2

     1 February 2010 at 1:24 pm

     You’re had at least one and possibly two (if you were wealthy enough to get Nationals) or three (if you managed to get WFF as well).

     No real point in giving you one. Like a spoilt child you always want MORE….
     • Lanthanide 2.2.1

       1 February 2010 at 2:21 pm

       Many of the people who actually did get National’s tax cut will see it all eaten away by increases to ACC both last year and this, anyway. I guess those who didn’t will still see their net income decrease from the ACC changes, so it’s still a saving in that respect.

       Personally I put mine into kiwisaver.
3. tsmithfield 3

   1 February 2010 at 3:24 pm

   What is the point of all this chest-beating about clamping down on those who find ways to minimise their tax by playing within the rules?

   As I’ve said before, and still haven’t got a rational reply about, when one tax loophole is closed off, it invariably creates another one. The wealthy can afford expensive accountants who are much more clever than those who set the rules.

   As I’ve said before, the best way to combat avoidance is to simplify the tax system by having a flat tax rate. If this were the case, the wealthy would probably end up paying more because avoidance would be impossible. At the same time, probably 70% of the accountants in NZ would be out of a job.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.1

     1 February 2010 at 6:51 pm

     As I’ve said before, and still haven’t got a rational reply about, when one tax loophole is closed off, it invariably creates another one.

     Only when it’s done by conservatives.
4. George D 4

   1 February 2010 at 3:28 pm

   It’s awful isn’t it. I’m glad to know that Labour are opposing tax-cuts for the rich.
   • Bright Red 4.1

     1 February 2010 at 4:18 pm

     Thre’s a fair case for adjusting the tax thresholds by cpi to partially counter-act bracket creep. Don’t you think? After all, if you don’t then everyone’s taxes go up for the same real income, same for someone on $15K as for on $75L
5. SPC 5

   1 February 2010 at 3:39 pm

   Ring fencing LAQC to property only, ends current tax payment flight. It also encourages repayment of foreign debt by those who finance their landlord business on low equity for tax reasons. Yet the Tax Group ignored this reform option. The simplest and neatest closing of a tax loophole there is and a loophole which is disadvantageous to our national economic good.

   The money raised can be used to reduce deficits forecasts for the next 3-5 years. A reduction in foreign debt on our property is an improvement in our national economic position as well.

   As for the crazy idea of taxing equity without ending LAQC, are they totally mad?

   It is the borrowed money used to own rental property that should be taxed, The cynic in me has to suggest the answer no one has considerd. Why not apply GST on the sale of rental property from one landlord to another? The tax not applying on the buying of a home fore a family to live in – it encourages a return to home ownership and as for those who have made untaxed CG let them pay GST if they can only sell the property to ANOTHER landlord in it for the CG.
   • RedLogix 5.1

     1 February 2010 at 4:02 pm

     Wish I could figure what you meant by any of that. Not a lot of it makes much sense, except that you seem to have the usual chip on your shoulder about landlordsd.
     • tsmithfield 5.1.1

       1 February 2010 at 4:09 pm

       RedLogix, we probably don’t agree on a lot of things, however I think we would agree on the situation with respect to landlords.

       As I understand it, governments have actually made the tax advantages available so that investors will be encouraged to build housing for rental so that the government doesn’t have to assume as much of this responsibility. Therefore, it seems a bit perverse to take these advantages away.

       If the government does remove some of the tax-breaks for landlords, then the costs will be passed on to tenants. This will end up resulting in the government having to pay out more in accomodation supplements and the like. So it all seems a bit self-defeating to me.
     • tsmithfield 5.1.2

       1 February 2010 at 4:25 pm

       If my accountant gives me the option of distributing income from my company at the end of the year:

       I can pay myself a salary in excess of 60k and get hit 38% on the extra above the threshold. Or I can pay myself just under the threshold and pay company tax of 30% on the extra. Which do you think I will choose?
6. Policy Parrot 6

   1 February 2010 at 4:40 pm

   As I’ve said before, the best way to combat avoidance is to simplify the tax system by having a flat tax rate. If this were the case, the wealthy would probably end up paying more because avoidance would be impossible. At the same time, probably 70% of the accountants in NZ would be out of a job.

   While this is a service accounting firms do offer to wealthy individuals, it is hardly their bread and butter. I’m sure they won’t be losing any sleep over the potential for tax alignment. Otherwise, why in the world, would a tax working group, dominated by those with professional and academic accounting experience, advocate reforms that would put them out of work?

   Personal tax is simple enough to work out in the first instance, even now with an alleged huge degree of complexity.
7. kiwiteen123 7

   1 February 2010 at 7:44 pm

   A bit of disagreement amongst the socialist ranks here…
   • lprent 7.1

     1 February 2010 at 8:03 pm

     Ah – I’d get worried if there wasn’t. It is just one of those myths of the right that has no relationship to reality.

     I see more mental cloning in the comments in the sewer than I’ve ever seen on the left.

     That is why I reluctantly went left. There was some intelligent argument there that I could really disagree with.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS