You should read up on some Austrian economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
They don't have all the answers but they are light years ahead of Marx or anyone else. They have proven that.
You should read up on some Austrian economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
They don't have all the answers but they are light years ahead of Marx or anyone else. They have proven that.
What's the point of Scotland, apart from draining our money, it's cold, wet and full of alcoholic sweaties!
IME the opposite is true. If you have any kind of income then you pay tax on it. In the case of a pension, you have earned it through taxable income. When the pension is paid, it's taxed again.Quote:
Originally Posted by draco888
Do you have a list of these countries who don't tax pension income?
Contributions are usually either not taxed or tax deductable.Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
Both UK and NZ tax pensions, NZ at around 12%. I'm not sure what the UK tax cut is these days, it varies. I'd expect that Oz does the same.
Which country did you contribute to your pension in?Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
This is incorrect in the case of the UK, pension contributions are not taxed on the way in. I would be surprised if this were not also the case for NZ and Oz.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Here we go, and you're partially correct, you only pay income tax on your UK pension(counted as an income) if your income rises above a certain threshold,
Tax on your State Pension Your State Pension counts as taxable income but you only pay tax on it if your overall income is above a certain level.
More here;
HM Revenue & Customs: How your pension income is taxed
But in NZ you pay 12% aprox depending on your tax rate of M( at 12% tax) or S (you pay more tax, around 15% I think) on your pension.
Any income received above that is taxed on a scale according to your occupation.
That's not quite correct. I meant contributions to personal pensions attract are tax deductible, no tax is paid on the way in. Income from the pension is then taxed as income when you receive it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
The 'state pension' for a lot of people is just a state benefit which is paid to low income people who have otherwise not provided for themselves. Even in the case of higher state pension holders the proceeds are paid out of general taxation revenue making a calculation of tax impossible as there is no real fund set aside. In this way very generous promises can be made by governments because it will be paid for future tax layers when one retires. So the tax on way in and way out really does not apply. Someone promised good retirement benefits living till very old age may receive many multiples of what they have paid in never mind whether they believed they have been taxed 'twice'.
I believe the majority of NZ 'pensions' work on this latter basis ie run by the state and there is no actual fund to pay pensions, it is merely transferred from current taxpayers to those now claiming retirement income.
There has always been an understanding that a proportion of taxes paid would fund state pensions in NZ, and a Superannuation scheme was put in place also years ago.
On the basis that people have already contributed to the overall running of the country, they're in fact entitled to e3xtended social welfare assistance when they retire, as the country has plenty of money it can fritter away on paying off the English crown debt to Maori or for buying new toys for the boys in the police and military.
One of the more pointless exercises for a country the size of NZ to get into is to build up some great military strength, to do what? Invade someone? Repel an invasion? Both are impossible given the size of t5he country.
The other big argument I hear is that why should the undeserving unemployed get any state aid as they don't contribute anything.
Stop the state aid and what would be the result?
It's not a fault of the unemployed that work is not available except at absolutely rock-bottom wages. That's a situation set up by industry and market forces.
In NZ, the basic wage is set at $13.50 an hour, it hasn't gone up in six years, while the cost of living has almost doubled in that time, rent for a house was around $200 - $250 a week im 2004, now it's around $450 a week.
Basic foods have gone up by nearly 30% in six years, cheese, bread, eggs etc while the bin rate for apple pickers was at $25 /bin @ 4 bins a day average now at best is $30/ bin, before tax. Consequently it's cheaper for the orchardists and other employers to hire foreign workers here who'll work at the minimum wage level, while the average Kiwi either gets the better paying jobs if they're available or go on the dole.
On top of all that, a visit to the doctor costs on average between $58 for pensioners up to $85 a visit for employed workers, then there are prescription costs and travel costs which see a bus ride at $7 for a ten minute bus ride to the shops, and the same back home.
There;s something skewed there, where it now takes two in a household to earn enough to keep a family of four going, renting a house or buying one.
Look at it clearly;
40 hrs /wk @ $13.50/hr = $540/wk, minus tax at 17.5% = $540 - $104.5 = $ 435.50 take home pay.
Deduct rent at $ 350 + travel costs of( $14/day = $70) leaves $15/ week for food, clothing, electricity, medical and school costs.
Bloody ridiculous. So state top ups are needed to cover the kids, which amount to not much more than another $100 dollars for two kids.
At that rate a family of four can just barely survive without any at all, and I mean barely survive.
So the wife/partner has to work, bringing home the same amount on average as the main bread winner, they then have about $365.50 on top to buy better quality food, pay for medical bills and school needs.
It doesn't leave them much to enjoy life with, no partying or going on extended hollidays, unless they work at a second job on weekends or at nights, asa many do.
Meanwhile, the government is creaming it in taxing them at 17.5% income tax, 15% GST and 28% company tax, all paid by the worker via income tax, GST and company tax built into cost of product bought.
A total tax take of 60.5% out of every dollar earned and spent per worker.
In other words, for every dollar spent, you're only getting 39.5 cents real value of a product, the rest of that dollar goes running into government coffers.
Go for a beer, and the tax on alcohol sees you paying the government another 14% average per pint.
Today, excise tax provides only a fraction of total NZ government revenue.
.... In the 2008/09 year, for example, alcohol-related excise amounted to $828.85
million or about 1.5% of government revenue. In addition to the excise tax a
small levy is imposed on all importers’ and producers’ products to fund the
Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand (ALAC). This levy provided $12.8
million to fund the Crown entity’s work in 2008/09.
The rest of government revenue comes fro income tax, company tax and GST
Today the average tax/levy on alcohol is around $1 a pint of beer, so when you buy a beerr at the average price of $7 there's another 14% average swipe out of your dollar, so in reality you're paying the tax man 75% of your money every btime you have a beer.
Great stuff, mate.
Take this figure;
alcohol-related excise amounted to $828.85 million or about 1.5% of government revenue.
Which makes declared NZ government revenue $55,256,666,600 per annum.
52% of all benefit expenditure and 15% of all NZ Government expenditure is paid out in pensions and the cost of delivering them, ie, paying the fat bureaucrats involved.
The other 48% of benefits paid out go at aproximately 21% for the unemployed, 21% for single parents and the rest to sickness beneficiaries, disabled etc.
That's 15% of $55,256,666,600 = $8,288,499,990 per annum, goes on pensions.
The figures above were for yr 2000.
NZ income tax rates
Personal income tax rates;
Top rate: 33% from $70,000
30% - $48,001 to $70,000
17.5% -$14,001 to $48,000
10.5% - $0 to $14,000
Company income tax rate is 28%
So if you struggle along at a low wage of say $13.50/hr, you end up paying more tax at an hourly rate than someone earning three times as much an hour, or a company that makes thousands of dollars more per hour.
Figure that one out.
And if you're unemployed, or a student, you're still taxed at 10.5% and cursed for it.
A just and fair tax for all?
Not on your nelly!
Oil, if Scotland gets all the revenues from the oil and gas in its waters with a population of only 5-6 million people it would be a wealthy country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribal Fusion
Yup, and the English would have to go to the Scots for a loan.
not sure this is correct, if the oil attributable to scotland say £8bn per annum then their deficit would be reduced to around £10bn pa. but still a deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboyOil, if Scotland gets all the revenues from the oil and gas in its waters with a population of only 5-6 million people it would be a wealthy country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribal Fusion
and remember these figures are based on current high oil prices. the picture over the last 30 years is considerably different. when oil was $30 per barrel their situation was even worse than now.
subtract public sector jobs which deal with the rest of the UK eg tax offices etc and the deficits increase still further. thats even before considering the removal of nuclear submarine bases etc. the overall balance is very difficult to assess accurately.
incorrect, scotland does not have a surplus to loan out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
You are missing my point, if Scotland was independent and had 100% of the oil and gas revenues in its waters then it would be a wealthy country with only a 5-6 mill population, but even if they do vote for independence which i don't think they will England is never going to agree to hand over 100% of the revenues, although there could be some interesting court cases in the future!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by draco888not sure this is correct, if the oil attributable to scotland say £8bn per annum then their deficit would be reduced to around £10bn pa. but still a deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboyOil, if Scotland gets all the revenues from the oil and gas in its waters with a population of only 5-6 million people it would be a wealthy country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribal Fusion
and remember these figures are based on current high oil prices. the picture over the last 30 years is considerably different. when oil was $30 per barrel their situation was even worse than now.
subtract public sector jobs which deal with the rest of the UK eg tax offices etc and the deficits increase still further. thats even before considering the removal of nuclear submarine bases etc. the overall balance is very difficult to assess accurately.
Because England takes the oil revenues from Scotish waters to be spent on all of the UK which is fair enough under the current set up i guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by draco888incorrect, scotland does not have a surplus to loan out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
that is the understanding but unfortunately no separate fund was ever established to fund these future state pensions, it was all spent on other things, unlike countries like Norway which actually saved/invested via a sovereign wealth fund.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
when Madoff used these accounting techniques it was rightly labelled a criminal Ponzi scheme, whereas when a Govt uses current tax revenues to pay past promises it is somehow ok. this is the reason why there is a move from defined benefit schemes to defined contribution schemes, its the only way the basic mathematics will work.
firstly scotland does not have 100% of the oil revenues based on their territorial waters, a majority yes but by no means 100%Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboyYou are missing my point, if Scotland was independent and had 100% of the oil and gas revenues in its waters then it would be a wealthy country with only a 5-6 mill population, but even if they do vote for independence which i don't think they will England is never going to agree to hand over 100% of the revenues, although there could be some interesting court cases in the future!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by draco888not sure this is correct, if the oil attributable to scotland say £8bn per annum then their deficit would be reduced to around £10bn pa. but still a deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboyOil, if Scotland gets all the revenues from the oil and gas in its waters with a population of only 5-6 million people it would be a wealthy country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribal Fusion
and remember these figures are based on current high oil prices. the picture over the last 30 years is considerably different. when oil was $30 per barrel their situation was even worse than now.
subtract public sector jobs which deal with the rest of the UK eg tax offices etc and the deficits increase still further. thats even before considering the removal of nuclear submarine bases etc. the overall balance is very difficult to assess accurately.
leaving that aside a country is never going to be wealthy if they are running a deficit. thats basic maths their deficit may go down from say £18bn to £10bn but they are still spending more than their revenues. if someone earns £10m per year but spends £12m per year are they wealthy? what is going to be their net situation after a number of years? if a person earns £100,000 per year and spends £70,000 per year after a few years who is going to hold more net wealth?
they would still not be in surplus if they kept their share of oil revenue.Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboyBecause England takes the oil revenues from Scotish waters to be spent on all of the UK which is fair enough under the current set up i guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by draco888incorrect, scotland does not have a surplus to loan out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
individuals do not pay corporate tax, you are ignoring the netting effects. you cannot just add up gross tax rates like that, thats not how economies work. why stop there add in inheritance tax, payroll tax, fuel tax etc etc and you could easily reach a figure of over 100%, very obviously not mathematically possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
under a PROGRESSIVE tax system like the one you describe the low income workers do not pay more tax at an hourly rate than higher income earners, not mathematically possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
the unemployed argument is spurious. if 100% of their income is a govt transfer payment from other peoples taxes then they are still receiving a net payment, no net tax is paid. if you give me $100 dollars and i gave you back $50 have i really paid you anything?
My UK salary was abated in order to fund my government pension scheme. The remainder of my salary was taxed at basic rate. I also paid National Insurance contributions.Quote:
Originally Posted by deaco888
UK. Now can you provide that list of countries that do not tax pensions please?Quote:
Which country did you contribute to your pension in?
Even after a personal allowance for untaxed income, which everyone gets, I still pay income tax on income from all sources. When I qualify for the state pension, that will also be taxed.
Scotland will probably want to rent the Navy Dockyard at Rosyth to the English if the gain independence.
They will also want to keep all the bases and thousands of service personnel who will be relocating there from Germany and post Afghanistan. Presumably tghey will also want the protection of Nato membership. They will also have to apply for membership of the EU.
Salmond is the Jock version of Arthur Scargill. Personal empire builder who will want his own fat face on the Jock currency.
i dont know if you read my previous posts on govt pension schemes but the UK did not use your pension deductions to build a fund to pay for your eventual pension payments, a criminal state of affairs in my view. they rely on current tax receipts to pay for what they promised you.Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
[quote=chassamui;2243286]as an expat you will not be charged tax on your foreign pension by any jurisdiction which levies tax on a territorial basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by deaco888
I think Scotland is already a member of the EU, I'm not sure they would have to reapply.