Govt gives tribunal August 24 deadline

17/10/2012 6:12:58 a.m.

jan.. wrote:

Cut the crabs without the water' there's no power' the Maori people has the right to there water rights and I wouldn't be dealing with this Government and its failure. Key knew that most of you idiots will agreed with his balls-up so he picked on the Maori rights, what you need to do is to concentrate on sacking this government with his failures but to fall in to the spell of failure and you also failed our country people and rights. Key promised the Maori shares in the water rights before he went on to Hollywood to correct his pay off by the captured of the Dotcom and CopyRights, this Government also promised the Pike River's faimily for the retrieving of their love ones for a proper burial' Key failed to keep those promises' Key failed the people of New Zealand. Rethink and get it right.

15/08/2012 4:26:13 p.m.

Anaru wrote:

Mal. Power charges are for power production and use, nothing more nothing less. Only water PRESSURE is used to produce power, not the water itself which is passed on completely intact in the same volume as before for others to use as they will. Because of this fact, no overseas company needs to have OWNERSHIP of water which is there free for all to use. Also, no-one charges you for water. You may be charged by water supply companies for the infrastructure to get water to you to recover costs for the dams they build, pipes and pumps used to transport it but charges are 'user pays', based on the volume of water used, but there is no actual cost charged for the water itself.

7/08/2012 9:27:42 p.m.

Mal wrote:

So why should foreign owners have water rights in this country, then charge us an arm and a leg for power usage? If we dont have rights to water, why should foreigners have it to fleece us? Pakeha own it right now. They are the only ones selling it. Not maori. Foreigners are buying the power stations, not the water rights.

3/08/2012 5:04:28 p.m.

Paora wrote:

Sorry Wiseacre. I don't go for your Socialistic poppycock of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Lower income people should learn to live within their means, grow their own vegetables and fish off the wharf for free food instead of expecting everyone else to molly coddle them, or maybe they could vote in a Government that will hand out more welfare. But wait, didn't we recently got rid of Clark's Labour Nanny State party because most people wanted a National Government who generally believe in self effort, self worth, less State hand-outs and a more even and fairer tax system? Guess that's why we have what we have rather than something along the lines you suggest.

3/08/2012 12:36:31 p.m.

Wiseacre wrote:

@Cathy & Iman - So you propose easing taxes on the rich even further, whilst burdening the poor with even more tax? A tax that will directly increase their living costs? Replacing a progressive income tax system with higher GST - a regressive tax that will impact upon the poor far more than the rich - is a preposterous idea. GST takes a much higher proportion of a workers minimum wage than it does for someone on $150,000. The rich don't spend proportionately more than the poor. The wealthy don't eat any more than the poor, and high ticket items such as flash cars are typically imported directly from overseas precisely to avoid GST. Part of the problem is that the wealthy hoard their wealth. Money should not be accumulated but circulated, invested, and spent for the common good. We should be replacing GST with a Financial Transactions Tax. It would require the banks, the bankers, the currency traders, financial speculators and all those greedy bastards that brought the global economy crashing down in 2008 to give a tiny little fraction of each transaction back. A tiny little fraction of each transaction that could add up to billions of dollars in revenue. By replacing GST with a Financial Transactions Tax, more money would be in the pockets of the masses, leading to more spending and a stronger, healthier economy.

3/08/2012 10:26:03 a.m.

Iman Olive wrote:

"Wiseacre". Even using your figures that claims the top 10% earners pay nearly half the tax take, which would be based on the current higher % per dollar tax they pay, compared to the collective amount lower income people pay, including those on welfare. It seems more fair to tax all incomes at the same flat rate. Those on higher incomes would still pay more tax because they earn more, so why should they then be penalised with a higher tax rate? Tax evasion is a completely different issue and perhaps Cathy's suggestion of doing away with income tax and only having a higher GST makes tidy sense. It certainly beats having to do tax returns and stops the fiddling at that stage of the money-go-round.

3/08/2012 9:01:38 a.m.

Cathy wrote:

Wiseacre. Regardless of the argument on who pays the most tax, lower income people bay a very small slice of the pie and higher income people pay far more of their incomes as tax proportionally. To block those who avoid income tax it's about time Income tax was abolished altogether and we only pay GST as a spending tax because money is worthless till it's spent. The more you spend the more tax you pay. That also gets rid of most of the work Inland Revenue does and reduces Govt spending.

3/08/2012 7:01:17 a.m.

Wiseacre wrote:

@Paul - That old lie again? The top 5% of taxpayers do not pay 80% of the tax take. It's just some thinly veiled mathematical chicanery to try and justify a pathetic *pity the poor rich guy* argument. In reality, the Tax Working Group Report found that the top 10% of taxpayers contribute 44% of income tax receipts. Some top income earners claim that this means that they pay a disproportionate share of the tax; what they neglect to point out is that the top earners pay a larger proportion of income tax because they take a *much* higher proportion of the income. Not to mention they own a lot more of the capital, which they are currently avoiding tax on. Over the past 25 years, New Zealand has chosen to increase the tax burden on the poor whilst lightening taxes on the wealthy - to no perceivable social or economic benefit. At very low income levels New Zealand charges more tax overall than each of the three most comparable countries - Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom - while at very high levels of income, none of the comparison countries levy lower taxes than New Zealand. We have a system in New Zealand that overtaxes the poor and undertaxes the rich. The NBR rich list shows the collective wealth of the richest New Zealanders rose by $7 billion, or 18%, in the last year. Meanwhile, according to information released last month by IRD, 50% of the wealthiest kiwis dodge their tax responsibilities. Your precious *wealthy* are fleecing this country and its people.

2/08/2012 10:32:06 p.m.

Paul wrote:

David. The so called 'wealthy' still pay more tax as a percentage of their income than anyone else. And, overall, 5% of the higher income people pay 80% of the income tax collected. Your claim is socialist nonsense.

2/08/2012 6:42:36 p.m.

David wrote:

@Stand Up NZ Its not people on the dole that are causing the problems.. its John Key giving the wealthy tax breaks that we have to borrow to pay for.