Student loan changes 'unlawful' - Greens

30 May 2011 08:37p.m.

David Curl wrote:

The low and middle income earmers pay 70% of the tax revenue yet get paid 40%. This is clear cut proof that the high earners are bludging off the backs of hard working kiwis to feather their own nest. Mike is clearly okay with this, (though he probably mistakes people bad mouthing him for bad mouthing this country) A 1% financial transactions tax on every transaction would generate the revenue a government would need to fund 2.5 times the things they need to fund. It's been independantly costed and accounted for by eminent accountants. But National won't implement it because the blidging rich people cannot dodge it. They would ahve to front up to paying their fair share.

28 May 2011 05:56p.m.

Karl Marx wrote:

Mike, after reading your rant, I seriously question your claim you obtained a degree from a New Zealand University. If, I error in such an assumption, then I fear you wasted your money and time, for the time in academia did little to strengthen your reasoning.

18 May 2011 05:32p.m.

Andrew wrote:

I think this is a great idea. However, I don't think it goes far enough: I also think it would be a good idea to refuse study loans to people with terminal conditions for the same reason. [dripping with sarcasm] The very fact that this government can take such a discriminatory line and we quietly go along with it is more than a bit frightening. Sure, there might be a real concern with repayment of student loans, but that should be tackled fairly and practically. If the issue is repayment, address that. Don't just create legislation that amounts to nothing more than a bigoted knee-jerk.

18 May 2011 01:26p.m.

Alex wrote:

@Mike: It is an elementary fact that the distribution of wealth created by the market is totally amoral - you'd know that if you'd studied economics. Hence there's nothing wrong with taxing the person on $7mil a year at $6mil a year because they don't 'deserve' it in any sense, they just happen to have it. As for creating jobs - the system you so dearly love actually prevents this from happening. To put it in the words of David Harvey, who put it so beautifully and succinctly: "We have masses of capital, and masses of labour, unemployed, side by side, in the midst of a world which is full of social need. How stupid is that?"

18 May 2011 07:57a.m.

Mike wrote:

I remember getting a letter from the Minister of Educations Office when I was at university - a Labour Party Minister at the time. The were being ageist as they have no problem discrimating against someone based on age.

The letter basicly said that they felt I shouldn't be at university, and that my parents were exactly the rich types they wanted to target and they were confirming no student allowances for me with no further appeals available. Well for the 'Shouldn't be at university' I still got a degree - no thanks to the Labour govt. I'm not Pro-National. I'm just anti-Idiots like Labour. I wrote enough letters to get the policy changed so they would use taxable income according to IRD vs fairytale income that Labour had been using that year. Didn't help me that year, but it will have helped any students after me.

This was after the '87 crash, my parents were working 2 jobs to get a net taxable income of around $5000 between them, and according to 'We Can't Add to 10 - Labour' this was excessive income. Was no working for families then, and even if there was like today they wouldn't have supported my parents. My Parents were left holding a building asset with a large mortage, and thanks to the crash it wasn't fully tennanted, the Labour Govt had pushed interest rates over 20% PA and my parents had to work 2 jobs to offset the interest on the building for around $5000 net income. My parents didn't pay for my fees/books etc - paid it myself and it was tough with no student allowances.

I know, battlers working hard isn't the Labour way. Labour would have not taken 2 jobs to offset the interest bill, they would have sold the building at a loss and sat round congratulating themselves for the 'big money' the building sold for, even if it was at a loss. Thats been a typical Labour asset sale philosophy throughout the years.

18 May 2011 07:36a.m.

Mike wrote:

If Alex takes the imaginary person earning $7 mil PA they will be paying like 2.3 mil in tax but alex feels this is not enough. Its also likely the $7 mil wasn't net taxable income and they have expenses to come off it, and those expenses are effectively employment for NZ'rs. If they consume it all, thats another 700,000 GST, ie over 3 mil in tax such a person would have paid which is about 43%! If you taxed every such individual in NZ it wouldn't get NZ out of its problems as such people have the money to move, and there aren't many of them in the first place! What contribution has Alex made to paying taxes? I bet they haven't contributed over 3 mil PA from 1 taxpayer, but he feels 3 mil per person is unfair when its not them paying, and it would be fair if they had to pay 6 mil in tax on a 7 mil income, leaving them with near nothing! if pay 6 mil in tax on 7 mil, then pay GST on the balance, down to around 850K, ie they paid 88% tax and alex feels thats fair! 43% is plenty high enough thanks.

Then if we get down to the net, a person like that is unlikely to spend everything, they tend to invest capital into businesses, and capital = economic growth vs consumption of welfare. Capital investment is much better for our country than consumption. Our exports are driven by capital, while our public debt is driven by consumption.

What is it with the brainless believing Labour that we have the 'rich' to tax this heavily? I bet they still believe in the toothfairy and easter bunny. While Labour will make talk about taxing them, their are too few of them to start with to bail out NZ, and they pay huge amounts of tax, like shown above a $7 mil income spent is over $3 mil in tax from 1 individual! Maybe a million is such a big number as many can't visualise anything bigger than '10' without taking their shoes off?

18 May 2011 02:52a.m.

Mike wrote:

Why doesent the goverment eligibilty for students loans in regards to residency status. Student loans should only be available to N.Z Citizens and not permenant residents or Australian Citizens. As thats how it is in Australia...kiwis cant get student loans over there so why should they. I know of a few aussies who come here to get a cheap degree and rack a debt and F off back to OZ and then bad mouth our country!

17 May 2011 11:52p.m.

Morgan wrote:

You voted for the scumbags!, now you are reaping the rewards of a filthy greedy national govt.
The nats have always been a law unto themselves.
Just look at the mess this country is in now, it`s become a broke lawless rathole, people can`t remember the devastaion the nats did in the 1990`s and thats the whole problem.

And don`t blame all this deficit BS on the ChCh quake!

17 May 2011 04:10p.m.

Vaughan wrote:

This could all be academic, because if education were FREE in the first instance we wouldn't be having this conversation!

17 May 2011 03:28p.m.

Alex wrote:

Oh, and if you really must know why it's fair to tax higher incomes more than lower ones, it's because $100 means a lot more to a starving person than it does to someone who's just bought their second yacht. People on your side of the political spectrum try to justify flat taxes on grounds other than "fairness," but I'll leave you to figure out what those grounds might be.