Wouldn't it be good if the government would decide that the top
effective tax rate for all taxpayers would be as low as 39% . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/519816/how-some-lower-income-households-could-end-up-with-a-128-percent-tax-rate#:~:text=Some%20lower%2Dincome%20families%20could,the%20Working%20for%20Families%20scheme.
The headline is about how the situation could deteriorate to some
effectively paying a top tax rate of 128.6% - but that would be in
2027. That is not far away, but then this government is not exactly
quick to work on some problems,
because this is not a problem for the
wealthy, but for those less well off. As the article says:
"Baucher said many people would be surprised at the effective rates of
tax that were being applied to people losing support from systems such
as Working for Families.
And while the government has lifted the in-work tax credit portion of
the Working for Families package to $25 a week, the abatement
threshold and abatement rate mean that on average most people will
receive just under $17.
"They're losing a third of it to abatement already, but the government
will talk about 'yeah, you're getting $25 a week'."
He said people who were earning less than $48,000 and getting Working
for Families had an effective tax rate that was higher than the prime minister or finance minister.
"It's a key point because you hear plenty of people saying 'people
need to get off their arses and work' and it just doesn't work like
that. It's not as simple as that. If you've got abatements you go
backwards if you take on extra work, let alone if you're incurring
extra costs such as travel and childcare." "
Wouldn't it be good if the government would decide that the top
effective tax rate for all taxpayers would be as low as 39% . . .
On 18 Jun 2024 22:26:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Neither of which are actually what you describe. More rhetoric from you.
On 2024-06-18, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/519816/how-some-lower-income-households-could-end-up-with-a-128-percent-tax-rate#:~:text=Some%20lower%2Dincome%20families%20could,the%20Working%20for%20Families%20scheme.
The headline is about how the situation could deteriorate to some
effectively paying a top tax rate of 128.6% - but that would be in
2027. That is not far away, but then this government is not exactly
quick to work on some problems,
In this case it could be argued that it was because this Government acted >>too quickly that the present situation exists.
Also clear the 128% tax rate is "impossible" and there is time to make >>corrections/adjustments by 1 April 2027.
The effective tax rate that a person pays is represented by how much
of a dollar increase in income is paid in tax. Currently there are
people who if they work an extra hour for example, their pay may well
go down because their lower eligibility for "Working for Families"
rebate more than offsets the increase in income - the combined
increase in income tax payable plus reduction in for a government
payment combines to actually reduce net income.
That does happen currently, but not to the extent that the author is
telling would happen in 2027 unless the government makes changes.
So for an increase in income of $25, effectively $8 disappears back to
Meanwhile it must be time to get all hot and bothered about the changes to >>the firearms law.
because this is not a problem for the
wealthy, but for those less well off. As the article says:
"Baucher said many people would be surprised at the effective rates of
tax that were being applied to people losing support from systems such
as Working for Families.
And while the government has lifted the in-work tax credit portion of
the Working for Families package to $25 a week, the abatement
threshold and abatement rate mean that on average most people will
receive just under $17.
the government - that is the same as if the marginal tax rate for that >individual is 32%. That represents the average effect for all those
receiving the working for Families package - for some it would be a
higher rate, for others lower.
"They're losing a third of it to abatement already, but the government
will talk about 'yeah, you're getting $25 a week'."
He said people who were earning less than $48,000 and getting Working
for Families had an effective tax rate that was higher than the prime
minister or finance minister.
Do you understand that now? And that has nothing to do with the tax >advantages this government has given to landlords, or the tax-free
allowances given to politicians.
It would be possible for the government to ask for the tax rules
relating to abatement of all benefits to ensure that nobody gets a
reduction in net income through an increase in work related earnings -
do you think it is fair that beneficiaries lose more of their net
income from working more than the Prime Minister or Minister of
Finance?
"It's a key point because you hear plenty of people saying 'people
need to get off their arses and work' and it just doesn't work like
that. It's not as simple as that. If you've got abatements you go
backwards if you take on extra work, let alone if you're incurring
extra costs such as travel and childcare." "
Wouldn't it be good if the government would decide that the top
effective tax rate for all taxpayers would be as low as 39% . . .
On 2024-06-18, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/519816/how-some-lower-income-households-could-end-up-with-a-128-percent-tax-rate#:~:text=Some%20lower%2Dincome%20families%20could,the%20Working%20for%20Families%20scheme.
The headline is about how the situation could deteriorate to some
effectively paying a top tax rate of 128.6% - but that would be in
2027. That is not far away, but then this government is not exactly
quick to work on some problems,
In this case it could be argued that it was because this Government acted
too quickly that the present situation exists.
Also clear the 128% tax rate is "impossible" and there is time to make >corrections/adjustments by 1 April 2027.
Meanwhile it must be time to get all hot and bothered about the changes to >the firearms law.
So for an increase in income of $25, effectively $8 disappears back tobecause this is not a problem for the
wealthy, but for those less well off. As the article says:
"Baucher said many people would be surprised at the effective rates of
tax that were being applied to people losing support from systems such
as Working for Families.
And while the government has lifted the in-work tax credit portion of
the Working for Families package to $25 a week, the abatement
threshold and abatement rate mean that on average most people will
receive just under $17.
"They're losing a third of it to abatement already, but the government
will talk about 'yeah, you're getting $25 a week'."
He said people who were earning less than $48,000 and getting Working
for Families had an effective tax rate that was higher than the prime
minister or finance minister.
"It's a key point because you hear plenty of people saying 'people
need to get off their arses and work' and it just doesn't work like
that. It's not as simple as that. If you've got abatements you go
backwards if you take on extra work, let alone if you're incurring
extra costs such as travel and childcare." "
Wouldn't it be good if the government would decide that the top
effective tax rate for all taxpayers would be as low as 39% . . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:one case, and an increase in income with no change to tax payable in
On 18 Jun 2024 22:26:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Neither of which are actually what you describe. More rhetoric from you. Exactly Tony - they are examples of a reduction in tax on income in
On 2024-06-18, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/519816/how-some-lower-income-households-could-end-up-with-a-128-percent-tax-rate#:~:text=Some%20lower%2Dincome%20families%20could,the%20Working%20for%20Families%20scheme.
The headline is about how the situation could deteriorate to some
effectively paying a top tax rate of 128.6% - but that would be in
2027. That is not far away, but then this government is not exactly
quick to work on some problems,
In this case it could be argued that it was because this Government acted >>>too quickly that the present situation exists.
Also clear the 128% tax rate is "impossible" and there is time to make >>>corrections/adjustments by 1 April 2027.
The effective tax rate that a person pays is represented by how much
of a dollar increase in income is paid in tax. Currently there are
people who if they work an extra hour for example, their pay may well
go down because their lower eligibility for "Working for Families"
rebate more than offsets the increase in income - the combined
increase in income tax payable plus reduction in for a government
payment combines to actually reduce net income.
That does happen currently, but not to the extent that the author is >>telling would happen in 2027 unless the government makes changes.
So for an increase in income of $25, effectively $8 disappears back to
Meanwhile it must be time to get all hot and bothered about the changes to >>>the firearms law.
because this is not a problem for the
wealthy, but for those less well off. As the article says:
"Baucher said many people would be surprised at the effective rates of >>>> tax that were being applied to people losing support from systems such >>>> as Working for Families.
And while the government has lifted the in-work tax credit portion of
the Working for Families package to $25 a week, the abatement
threshold and abatement rate mean that on average most people will
receive just under $17.
the government - that is the same as if the marginal tax rate for that >>individual is 32%. That represents the average effect for all those >>receiving the working for Families package - for some it would be a
higher rate, for others lower.
"They're losing a third of it to abatement already, but the government >>>> will talk about 'yeah, you're getting $25 a week'."
He said people who were earning less than $48,000 and getting Working
for Families had an effective tax rate that was higher than the prime
minister or finance minister.
Do you understand that now? And that has nothing to do with the tax >>advantages this government has given to landlords, or the tax-free >>allowances given to politicians.
It would be possible for the government to ask for the tax rules
relating to abatement of all benefits to ensure that nobody gets a >>reduction in net income through an increase in work related earnings -
do you think it is fair that beneficiaries lose more of their net
income from working more than the Prime Minister or Minister of
Finance?
"It's a key point because you hear plenty of people saying 'people
need to get off their arses and work' and it just doesn't work like
that. It's not as simple as that. If you've got abatements you go
backwards if you take on extra work, let alone if you're incurring
extra costs such as travel and childcare." "
Wouldn't it be good if the government would decide that the top
effective tax rate for all taxpayers would be as low as 39% . . .
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 04:57:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am glad that you agree that your description was incorrect. There may be a chance for you yet. Let's hope.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:one case, and an increase in income with no change to tax payable in
On 18 Jun 2024 22:26:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Neither of which are actually what you describe. More rhetoric from you. >Exactly Tony - they are examples of a reduction in tax on income in
On 2024-06-18, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/519816/how-some-lower-income-households-could-end-up-with-a-128-percent-tax-rate#:~:text=Some%20lower%2Dincome%20families%20could,the%20Working%20for%20Families%20scheme.
The headline is about how the situation could deteriorate to some
effectively paying a top tax rate of 128.6% - but that would be in
2027. That is not far away, but then this government is not exactly
quick to work on some problems,
In this case it could be argued that it was because this Government acted >>>>too quickly that the present situation exists.
Also clear the 128% tax rate is "impossible" and there is time to make >>>>corrections/adjustments by 1 April 2027.
The effective tax rate that a person pays is represented by how much
of a dollar increase in income is paid in tax. Currently there are
people who if they work an extra hour for example, their pay may well
go down because their lower eligibility for "Working for Families"
rebate more than offsets the increase in income - the combined
increase in income tax payable plus reduction in for a government >>>payment combines to actually reduce net income.
That does happen currently, but not to the extent that the author is >>>telling would happen in 2027 unless the government makes changes.
So for an increase in income of $25, effectively $8 disappears back to >>>the government - that is the same as if the marginal tax rate for that >>>individual is 32%. That represents the average effect for all those >>>receiving the working for Families package - for some it would be a >>>higher rate, for others lower.
Meanwhile it must be time to get all hot and bothered about the changes to >>>>the firearms law.
because this is not a problem for the
wealthy, but for those less well off. As the article says:
"Baucher said many people would be surprised at the effective rates of >>>>> tax that were being applied to people losing support from systems such >>>>> as Working for Families.
And while the government has lifted the in-work tax credit portion of >>>>> the Working for Families package to $25 a week, the abatement
threshold and abatement rate mean that on average most people will
receive just under $17.
"They're losing a third of it to abatement already, but the government >>>>> will talk about 'yeah, you're getting $25 a week'."
He said people who were earning less than $48,000 and getting Working >>>>> for Families had an effective tax rate that was higher than the prime >>>>> minister or finance minister.
Do you understand that now? And that has nothing to do with the tax >>>advantages this government has given to landlords, or the tax-free >>>allowances given to politicians.
the other. Good you are keeping up.
It would be possible for the government to ask for the tax rules
relating to abatement of all benefits to ensure that nobody gets a >>>reduction in net income through an increase in work related earnings -
do you think it is fair that beneficiaries lose more of their net
income from working more than the Prime Minister or Minister of
Finance?
"It's a key point because you hear plenty of people saying 'people
need to get off their arses and work' and it just doesn't work like
that. It's not as simple as that. If you've got abatements you go
backwards if you take on extra work, let alone if you're incurring
extra costs such as travel and childcare." "
Wouldn't it be good if the government would decide that the top
effective tax rate for all taxpayers would be as low as 39% . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 06:22:03 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,919 |
| Posted today: | 1 |