An interesting perspective

Page  12>
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Contract Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: An interesting perspective
    Posted: 03 Sep 2014 at 3:47pm
Contract View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2008
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 1932
I am sure I will upset a few people with this post, but I received the following parable in my emails today.
Quite an interesting perspective. I would doubt the actual event even took place ~ it is all just hypothesis ~ just like all political policies being put to us these days. All of them are just one political parties idea of what will happen if so and so is put into place.
Please ~ enjoy the read, as did I

When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when
government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Is this man truly a genius? Checked out and this is true...it DID happen! (not my words !)
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never
failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would
be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on
Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the
same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A....(substituting
grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by
all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little
were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied
little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they
wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and
name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the
benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that
SOCIALISM would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the
effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away,
no one will try or want to succeed.

It could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable
to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy
out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work
for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does
not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any
nation.

Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (2) Likes(2)   Quote Kevin.S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2014 at 4:16pm
Kevin.S View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Location: Waiuku
Status: Offline
Points: 6769
No, I don't suppose it did ever happen. But come election time numerous versions of the same old right wing claptrap keep going around. Socialism doesn't work, but neither does the capitalism we currently have either.

Here are a few statistics;

•From the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s, the gap between the rich and the rest widened faster in New Zealand than in any other wealthy country
•In the last 30 years, incomes for people at the top have doubled, while those at the lowest end have barely increased
•The average household in the top 10 per cent of New Zealand now has nine times the income of one in the bottom 10 per cent
•The top 1 per cent of adults own three times as much of the country’s wealth as the entire lower half put together


What could this mean? here's a definition of the causes of revolution pulled from the web;

In society, revolution is usually caused by injustices rendered by corrupt leaders or a corrupt system that oppresses the people. Revolution can also be caused by disparity between the haves and have-nots. When the gap between rich and poor becomes so great that the poor can no longer survive under these conditions they revolt and establish a system of wealth redistribution. Once the wealth has been redistributed the poor are happy again and eventually grow apathetic, then the rich begin their quiet revolution of taking the wealth back and continue to do so until the disparity between the have's and the have not's becomes so great that the poor can no longer....but ...a revolution can take place only if the people are good organized and led so the best way to stop revolution is a tactic that is called...DIVIDE ET IMPERA...what means in fact bringing people from the same group to act against each other...nowdays this is done through as many as possible syndicates...more syndicates means more struggling and energy that could be used against goverment is killing itself.


I'm not suggesting there will be a revolution in NZ, but the increasing inequality in the country can only be a bad thing. I don't know what the answer is, but the right wing theory of making the rich richer so that some of their money will magically "trickle down" to everyone else doesn't work. Nor would the lefts idea of taxing the rich more and more, they will just end up as poor as everyone else.

Any political party with a genuine good idea to address these issues would probably do very well.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Southern_Jez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2014 at 5:41pm
Southern_Jez View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 25 May 2011
Location: Foveaux Striat
Status: Offline
Points: 2025
The problem as I see it is that we are sitting on the fence as to which way we want NZ to go. Our taxes are too high for the rights ldeal of user-pays-for-everything, and our taxes are too low for the left's state-funded-everything (the everythings i refer to are health, education, infrastructure).

Examples of countries with those kinds of policies:
Japan - user pays for everything themselves ... everyone is taxed at 5%, and everyone has their own health, dental, property, income insurances which they pay for themselves. Requires a lot of personal responsibility and discipline, and a little faith that the insurance companies wont rip you off in the event of requiring them (ask people from Christchurch how they feel about insurance companies nowdays)
Norway - high taxes (upwards of 50%) and government pays for education, healthcare, and benefits in case jobs fall through and they are required. This came about due to exploitation of their vast mineral wealth, and the whole country realising that they are better off putting in the effort than not, most likely that was achieved through unbiased quality education, or just by looking at some of their neighbours (USSR for example)

As an upper-middle class income earner I should be able to put away a few dollars a month for a rainy day ... i cant. I'm not broke on the bones of my backside, but my savings account is not increasing in size, after living costs, mortgage, et al, there is enough left for about $100 worth of sanity (petrol for the boat) and thats it.

What do i suggest? Pick one way and go the whole hog, so long as there is an overall benefit to the population as a whole. Catering to one extreme or the other just doesn't work.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote sr2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2014 at 9:25pm
sr2 View Drop Down
Silver
Silver


Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 203
Originally posted by Kevin.S Kevin.S wrote:

•From the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s, the gap between the rich and the rest widened faster in New Zealand than in any other wealthy country


Interesting investigation on 7 sharp tonight, it appears the "gap between rich and poor" hasn't changed for the last 20 years!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10244667/Rich-poo
r-gap-not-growing-report


(You might want to re-examine your data source)

Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (2) Likes(2)   Quote Contract Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 9:16am
Contract View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2008
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 1932
But the info came from the web !
I am not being cynical, but my point was ~ I believe in the logic that if you are going to be given something without working for it, what incentive is there EVER to work for ANYTHING.
If you are one of the ones who decide to work and to take RISKS to better yourself (and make yourself a "rich prick") ~ why should you not be allowed to retain your wealth ?
If there is no incentive for you to WORK HARD AND TAKE RISKS ~ why bother ?
And if you don't bother ~ who will pay the taxes, or for even that matter ~ employ the "not so well off".

I think the 5 points raised in the article I posted are all quite valid social commentary.

A couple of years back, many people left NZ for Australia, because they thought Australia was going to "end all their woes". This clearly hasn't worked and the outflow is now just a trickle.

The pendulum is trying to be forced in the other direction.
I worry that the "successful" 55 ~ 65 year old business people (who are the main tax take basis of this country) ~ will decide they have had enough. If they toss their toys out of the cot and call it a day ~ we are really in donkey doo dah.
Or should a political party say that they are not allowed to "retire" and must continue being successful so that their success can be shared with those that are not.
I don't profess to have the answer, but I CAN recognize a bad solution
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote onthedrop Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 10:18am
onthedrop View Drop Down
Gold
Gold
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 792
The thing I don't understand is how everyone who whinges about the lefts proposed tax increases can possibly be in the top 3% that these tax increases will effect??


FEED THE WHANAU
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Tagit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 10:46am
Tagit View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Westhaven, Auck
Status: Offline
Points: 15052
I think that if you get the principles right, the rest will follow. The principle of beating people for being successful is very 'Kiwi', but the reality is that it is a proven way to fail if taken too far. When it gets to a certain level those people start to jump ship and take their wealth to greener pastures. 

Same argument is proven by many places with super low tax rates having millions of wealthy people and companies domiciled in them that were not born/created there. Imagine how much tax they take even at super low %'s. Give people and companies enough incentive and they will take their toys to play somewhere else. This is the real world situation. Imagine if we has super low company taxes how many international companies might want to base themselves in a desirable location (the place and the work force available) like NZ. They then bring higher employment and better salary levels, so our PAYE collection goes up to help compensate for the lower corporate taxes. Same for wealthy individuals. The problem is how do you transition to this without years of low tax take as you evolve.

The idea of taxing the wealthy end to prop up the low end is OK, and the wealthy will support it, but only to a point. After that the system is broken and will fall over. In a perfectly fair world every individual would contribute the same amount of $'s to our society via their basic taxes, with the variation coming in consumption taxes that are linked somehow to the financial impact of that consumption i.e. it is totally fair. Reality is that social harmony requires more from the wealthy to support the less wealthy, but even this compromise has a cost in overall wealth creation. Can anyone really supply a moral argument about why the wealthy should pay many times for in taxes than the less wealthy? All the real arguments are the pragmatic ones about social equality and social stability. They are completely correct, but they aren't about being 'fair', and they aren't about creating the maximum overall wealth.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Joker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 12:21pm
Joker View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Is it fair that someone can choose to retire on the birth of their 1st (of many) baby - yet expect me to work many years (and likely to increase) without getting a very good return for MY money?

Returns like: Food in kids bellies, Inoculations, School attendance, less violence and abuse ... etc ...etc

Be aware that once benefits (bribes) are given it is almost impossible for a government to remove these benefits that have become RIGHTs!
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote cirrus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 12:32pm
cirrus View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 07 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 9760
Any party that talks about increasing tax will not get my vote--simple. If they dont have the clues to run a countries services on what they already  have then imo they dont have the ability to run a country.

Taxing the rich -in reality the middle earners will not make the poor wealthy.

Look no further than France. Recently elected Socialist Govt has lost 26% of support. They taxed the rich. The rich either transfered capital ,business , and them selves in some cases to another country.

Frances loss is gain for some other country.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Steps Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 12:35pm
Steps View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 14 Oct 2013
Location: Franklin
Status: Offline
Points: 12849
The ragin/ thatcher experiment of the 80s has been a complete social failure in more aspects than just economic... and to think this has or has not been a left or right wing trend is also false....it has and is just another economic theory , that has been put in practice before, failed and tried again because we think egotistically that we now live in modern times thing will be different... BS

The only real social and economic experiments that have worked over the last 2000 yrs has been to expand the middle income / middle class , trades, shop keepers section of the community from both the  to 1/2 of low and  bottom 1/2 of upper income brackets
And it doesnt matter if it is a right wing or left wing government that builds on this.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (2) Likes(2)   Quote v8-coupe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 1:15pm
v8-coupe View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 4109
Originally posted by Tagit Tagit wrote:

I think that if you get the principles right, the rest will follow. The principle of beating people for being successful is very 'Kiwi', but the reality is that it is a proven way to fail if taken too far. When it gets to a certain level those people start to jump ship and take their wealth to greener pastures. 

Same argument is proven by many places with super low tax rates having millions of wealthy people and companies domiciled in them that were not born/created there. Imagine how much tax they take even at super low %'s. Give people and companies enough incentive and they will take their toys to play somewhere else. This is the real world situation. Imagine if we has super low company taxes how many international companies might want to base themselves in a desirable location (the place and the work force available) like NZ. They then bring higher employment and better salary levels, so our PAYE collection goes up to help compensate for the lower corporate taxes. Same for wealthy individuals. The problem is how do you transition to this without years of low tax take as you evolve.

The idea of taxing the wealthy end to prop up the low end is OK, and the wealthy will support it, but only to a point. After that the system is broken and will fall over. In a perfectly fair world every individual would contribute the same amount of $'s to our society via their basic taxes, with the variation coming in consumption taxes that are linked somehow to the financial impact of that consumption i.e. it is totally fair. Reality is that social harmony requires more from the wealthy to support the less wealthy, but even this compromise has a cost in overall wealth creation. Can anyone really supply a moral argument about why the wealthy should pay many times for in taxes than the less wealthy? All the real arguments are the pragmatic ones about social equality and social stability. They are completely correct, but they aren't about being 'fair', and they aren't about creating the maximum overall wealth.


The other thing I may add as an aside is that many at the top who are paid large salaries do not actually warrant nor earn those salaries. They are paid them off the efforts of the genuine wealth generators who in many circumstances are treated like second class citizens. Sure to a certain extent having nice certificates hanging on the wall should theoretically mean you are entitled to earn more. However from experience, they usually mean very little and those in the top echelons usually rely heavily on the experience and knowledge of those below them.
I have friends who are millionaires and have no truck with them. I know what they sacrificed and the spadework put in to get "their" businesses up, running and successful. It is the overpaid CEO's/senior managers that waltz into an established company and demand huge salaries/perks/bonuses that annoy me. How many of these overpaid bludgers have actually started and run their own successful businesses. Very very few I would say.
To me. Wage equality is more important and would level many things out. However I am neither left nor right and just believe everyone should get a fair go. Naïve is the word I believe. So it is probably safer to ignore my ramblings as inconsequential and off topic.
Cheers
Legasea Legend Member
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote Kevin.S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 1:22pm
Kevin.S View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Location: Waiuku
Status: Offline
Points: 6769
bang on V8, not just big corporations either -look at what council officials earn now. Remember when the "town clerk" ran the finances for a modest salary, now we have CEO's who apparently need to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, because "it's the going rate".

I don't believe anyone deserves a free ride, and would have no problem in making beneficiaries do some kind of community service to earn their hand-outs. But there are lots of people in NZ working hard, only getting minimum wage who can't afford to feed their families properly. But they can't be paid more, otherwise there wouldn't be enough profits to pay the fat cats at the top.
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Joker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 2:15pm
Joker View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
As a famous British Lady once said - "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of someone else's money"
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Contract Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 2:33pm
Contract View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2008
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 1932
Originally posted by Joker Joker wrote:

As a famous British Lady once said - "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of someone else's money"




Q.E.D.

How 'bout this for a policy
1) No tax paid by ANYBODY
2) Any money earned in a HOUSEHOLD in excess of $80,000 per year, be automatically transferred to the state to pay for all the things that current taxes are paying for at present.

That should get a few votes for David
All the low incomes will get a huge lift in their take home earnings
The Rich Pricks will have to learn to live on $80K per year ~ a figure that the majority of New Zealanders can only dream about


...... yeah, that'll work. I'll vote for them
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (1) Likes(1)   Quote onthedrop Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Sep 2014 at 9:18am
onthedrop View Drop Down
Gold
Gold
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 792
top tax brackets
USA 55.9%
UK 45%
OZ 45%
Back here in Aotearoa the other 97% of tax payers (proportionately that's more than likely to be YOU) would actually receive tax cuts if you voted green.

FEED THE WHANAU
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Contract Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Sep 2014 at 12:36pm
Contract View Drop Down
Platinum
Platinum
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2008
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 1932
Onthedrop. Perhaps a more honest perspective
USA Tax rates     More than NZ$483,000   tax rate 39.6%
                            More than NZ$186,000 tax rate 33%
UK Tax rates        More than NZ$300,000 tax rate 45%
                             More than NZ$80,000 tax rate 20%
Australia tax        More than A$180,000 tax rate 47%
                             More than $80,000 tax rate 37%

Based on these more accurate figures, maybe we SHOULD change to the USA model
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote onthedrop Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Sep 2014 at 1:07pm
onthedrop View Drop Down
Gold
Gold
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Quick google search yielded those numbers for me so not too worried about there accuracy but was pointing out that taxing higher earners is not a new concept.
FEED THE WHANAU
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote onthedrop Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Sep 2014 at 1:18pm
onthedrop View Drop Down
Gold
Gold
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Contract as per your avatar you also work hard to pay JK over 400,000 a year, a single male over 25 on an unemployment benefit gets about 12000. Living Large right there
FEED THE WHANAU
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Joker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Sep 2014 at 1:21pm
Joker View Drop Down
Titanium
Titanium


Joined: 09 Dec 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Originally posted by onthedrop onthedrop wrote:

Quick google search yielded those numbers for me so not too worried about there accuracy but was pointing out that taxing higher earners is not a new concept.


It never was a new concept - under Muldoon it was 66% on quite a modest amount
Back to Top
Post Options Post Options   Likes (0) Likes(0)   Quote Raging Bull Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Sep 2014 at 1:47pm
Raging Bull View Drop Down
Moderator - Brown Belt
Moderator - Brown Belt
Avatar
Big Sexy

Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 5822
Originally posted by sr2 sr2 wrote:

Originally posted by Kevin.S Kevin.S wrote:

•From the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s, the gap between the rich and the rest widened faster in New Zealand than in any other wealthy country


Interesting investigation on 7 sharp tonight, it appears the "gap between rich and poor" hasn't changed for the last 20 years!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10244667/Rich-poo
r-gap-not-growing-report


(You might want to re-examine your data source)



That article is very misleading, not surprising as it was produced by/for the national government.

It says the top incomes are 8x the low incomes and that isn't changing but if you do the maths you will see....

10x8 = 80

20x8 = 160

30x8 = 240

40x8 = 320

So let's say the low income was 10k that would make the top 80k . Then the low income went up to $40k, that would mean the high income was $320k

So there is a very simple demonstration of how the gap gets bigger even though they don't want to say so. What was a $70k gap would now be a $280k gap but the top income is still only 8 times the low income, no change there, all is good you silly poor people!

It also says that from 2009 - 2013 the lower income earners got a 0% increase while higher income earners got 5%!

You can make the figures look how you want to justify your stance. You could also watch this

http://tvnz.co.nz/nigel-latta/s1-ep4-video-6025283

Back to Top
Page  12>
Forum Jump
Forum Permissions View Drop Down


This page was generated in 0.594 seconds.

Fishing Reports Visit Reports

Saltwater Fishing Reports
Top of the South Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Tasman and Golden Bay snapper still running hot We are not far away from daylight... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Bay of Islands Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Variety is the spice of life On one recent trip, the plan was to spend a... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Hauraki Gulf Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Fish where the fish are! Catching fish or just going fishing? I tackle this issue... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Saltwater Fishing Reports
Inner Hauraki Gulf Fishing Report - 22/03/24

Thoughtful tactics required for better fish Over the course of each year the fishing varies,... Read More >

22 Mar 2024
Fishing bite times Fishing bite times

Major Bites

Minor Bites

Major Bites

Minor Bites