So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theYou are a fool - the Taxpayers' union have had a petition running against the rises for more than two weeks as they demonstrate their non-partisan approach. Government cannot turn down the rise and the process that sets the rise is enshrined in legislation - there is no discretion in the process.
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the ConsolidatedA tax benefit is optional, it is not automatic - anybody who wants one has to claim it. So you are defaming Luxon by assuming he will claim tax relief. You are so transparent it is pathetic.
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theSo you believe that there was some involvement by government in this decision - yes you would believe that - it is all you have - desparation, and no real criticism available to you.
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theYou are a fool - the Taxpayers' union have had a petition running against the >rises for more than two weeks as they demonstrate their non-partisan approach. >Government cannot turn down the rise and the process that sets the rise is >enshrined in legislation - there is no discretion in the process.
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the ConsolidatedA tax benefit is optional, it is not automatic - anybody who wants one has to >claim it. So you are defaming Luxon by assuming he will claim tax relief. You >are so transparent it is pathetic.
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theSo you believe that there was some involvement by government in this decision -
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
yes you would believe that - it is all you have - desparation, and no real >criticism available to you.
The rises are entirely the province of an independent organisation and >government has no say in it - this has happened before and you did not complain
when Labour MPs got pay rises.
You are a loser, pathetic, cheap and you have lied again.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 07:13:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo they cannot decline it - provide proof or piss off you lying little boy.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theYou are a fool - the Taxpayers' union have had a petition running against the >>rises for more than two weeks as they demonstrate their non-partisan approach.
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
Government cannot turn down the rise and the process that sets the rise is >>enshrined in legislation - there is no discretion in the process.
Government can decline it. That has been said many times - but like
the government you were not listening Tony.
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >>>Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!A tax benefit is optional, it is not automatic - anybody who wants one has to >>claim it. So you are defaming Luxon by assuming he will claim tax relief. You >>are so transparent it is pathetic.
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:56:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyBecause he is actually separated from it - he had nothing to do with it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theSo you believe that there was some involvement by government in this decision >>-
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >>>Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
yes you would believe that - it is all you have - desparation, and no real >>criticism available to you.
The rises are entirely the province of an independent organisation and >>government has no say in it - this has happened before and you did not >>complain
when Labour MPs got pay rises.
You are a loser, pathetic, cheap and you have lied again.
Luxon is wanting to separate himself from the decision
- we alreadyYou are derabged - what sort of political logic is that?
know that he was not involved as the decision was made by an
independent body, but what sort of example was he setting - he is
flaunting his wealth by saying he does not need it
- we know many doYou really have lost it.
in these trying times, but his choice of where the money is needed is
not the government to keep jobs, not cut health services, keep paying >benefits - no he wants to pay it to a charity - when government is
cutting charity by stopping school lunches. Why would he do that?
Because it gives him the tax relief on his charitable contribution -
this is the rich mans reflex - even when trying to appear generous he
comes across as self-interested, unthinking, unaware of the impact of
his actions.
You are not the only loser Tony, all of New Zealand is losing becauseNo, I and the whole country have gained enormously since this government thrashed your lot last year. They have stuck to their promises and are doing what we, the electors, asked for - that really sticks in your craw doesn't it?
the current government is off track.
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:56:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the >>>money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of aSo you believe that there was some involvement by government in this decision
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >>>Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
-
yes you would believe that - it is all you have - desparation, and no real >>criticism available to you.
The rises are entirely the province of an independent organisation and >>government has no say in it - this has happened before and you did not >>complain
when Labour MPs got pay rises.
You are a loser, pathetic, cheap and you have lied again.
Luxon is wanting to separate himself from the decisionBecause he is actually separated from it - he had nothing to do with it.
- we alreadyYou are derabged - what sort of political logic is that?
know that he was not involved as the decision was made by an
independent body, but what sort of example was he setting - he is
flaunting his wealth by saying he does not need it
- we know many doYou really have lost it.
in these trying times, but his choice of where the money is needed is
not the government to keep jobs, not cut health services, keep paying >benefits - no he wants to pay it to a charity - when government is
cutting charity by stopping school lunches. Why would he do that?
Because it gives him the tax relief on his charitable contribution -
this is the rich mans reflex - even when trying to appear generous he
comes across as self-interested, unthinking, unaware of the impact of
his actions.
You are not the only loser Tony, all of New Zealand is losing becauseNo, I and the whole country have gained enormously since this government thrashed your lot last year.
the current government is off track.
They have stuck to their promises and are doing
what we, the electors, asked for - that really sticks in your craw doesn't it?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 07:13:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the >>>money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of aYou are a fool - the Taxpayers' union have had a petition running against the
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
rises for more than two weeks as they demonstrate their non-partisan approach.
Government cannot turn down the rise and the process that sets the rise is >>enshrined in legislation - there is no discretion in the process.
Government can decline it. That has been said many times - but likeNo they cannot decline it - provide proof or piss off you lying little boy.
the government you were not listening Tony.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:56:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theSo you believe that there was some involvement by government in this decision -
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >>>Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
yes you would believe that - it is all you have - desparation, and no real >>criticism available to you.
The rises are entirely the province of an independent organisation and >>government has no say in it - this has happened before and you did not complain
when Labour MPs got pay rises.
You are a loser, pathetic, cheap and you have lied again.
Luxon is wanting to separate himself from the decision - we already
know that he was not involved as the decision was made by an
independent body, but what sort of example was he setting - he is
flaunting his wealth by saying he does not need it - we know many do
in these trying times, but his choice of where the money is needed is
not the government to keep jobs, not cut health services, keep paying benefits - no he wants to pay it to a charity - when government is
cutting charity by stopping school lunches. Why would he do that?
Because it gives him the tax relief on his charitable contribution -
this is the rich mans reflex - even when trying to appear generous he
comes across as self-interested, unthinking, unaware of the impact of
his actions.
You are not the only loser Tony, all of New Zealand is losing because
the current government is off track.
On 2024-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes that is still correct. One third is available on application provided the amount is above the threshold.
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by
donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
Last time I checked the that rebate on donations was 33.33%.
https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/individual-tax-credits/tax-credits-for-donationsYes that is also correct.
Seems it is still the same amount.
Now the MP are forced to accept the pay increases.
This issue has come up
before and several MPs have donated the rise to charity. Instead of banging >on about the person how about starting suggesting that the law is changed to >an opt out situation.
What Luxon is doing is within the law, and is it better than someone else
in more need of the money gets it rather than some one who is wealthy.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
In article <part1of1.1.jj5rWRUQpamo0Q@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzWe the people of NZ will foot that cost and if the plans that the last government had were in place we would still have had to foot the same cost (just through a different mechanism). It is not a new cost despite the disinformation about 3 waters. It is a historic bill because of decades of failing to address infrastructure improvements. As for 3 waters undemocratic co-governance implications, well that is another good riddance feeling, >Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off as
says...
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:56:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyBecause he is actually separated from it - he had nothing to do with it.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theSo you believe that there was some involvement by government in this
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by
donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
decision
-
yes you would believe that - it is all you have - desparation, and no real >> >>criticism available to you.
The rises are entirely the province of an independent organisation and
government has no say in it - this has happened before and you did not
complain
when Labour MPs got pay rises.
You are a loser, pathetic, cheap and you have lied again.
Luxon is wanting to separate himself from the decision
- we alreadyYou are derabged - what sort of political logic is that?
know that he was not involved as the decision was made by an
independent body, but what sort of example was he setting - he is
flaunting his wealth by saying he does not need it
- we know many doYou really have lost it.
in these trying times, but his choice of where the money is needed is
not the government to keep jobs, not cut health services, keep paying
benefits - no he wants to pay it to a charity - when government is
cutting charity by stopping school lunches. Why would he do that?
Because it gives him the tax relief on his charitable contribution -
this is the rich mans reflex - even when trying to appear generous he
comes across as self-interested, unthinking, unaware of the impact of
his actions.
No, I and the whole country have gained enormously since this government
You are not the only loser Tony, all of New Zealand is losing because
the current government is off track.
thrashed your lot last year.
Pretty big generalisation there. But if we're accepting anecdotal
evidence, the *only* person I know who has gained at all is a landlord
who is maybe a bit better off financially now, though I'm not sure the
return of interest deductability isn't going to being eaten up by rates
rises which are at least in part so high due to the council now having
to foot the entire bill for 3 waters.
living costs continue to rise and government and council services becomeThat's what happens when you live with the damage the last government bestowed upon us. These costs have not materialised by magic in the past 6 months for goodness sake.
more expensive.
Whatever size tax cuts are coming I would be surprisedI don't think there should be any tax cuts at this time.
if they were big enough to make a material difference.
They have stuck to their promises and are doing
what we, the electors, asked for - that really sticks in your craw doesn't >>it?
In article <part1of1.1.VzKqWdwDGuTkHg@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzOnce done - it cannot be refused by the MP. It can only be donated in some manner.
says...
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 07:13:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo they cannot decline it - provide proof or piss off you lying little boy.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theYou are a fool - the Taxpayers' union have had a petition running against >> >>the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by
donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
rises for more than two weeks as they demonstrate their non-partisan
approach.
Government cannot turn down the rise and the process that sets the rise is >> >>enshrined in legislation - there is no discretion in the process.
Government can decline it. That has been said many times - but like
the government you were not listening Tony.
The previous government froze MPs pay back in 2018 so clearly it can be
done. And then removed the freeze.
Whether it should or not is another matter. I don't really have a
problem with paying MPs well - its a hard job and paying well reduces
the incentive to engage in corruption.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Correction - And then removed the freeze.
In article <part1of1.1.VzKqWdwDGuTkHg@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...
The previous government froze MPs pay back in 2018 so clearly it can be >>done.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 07:13:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo they cannot decline it - provide proof or piss off you lying little boy. >>
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theYou are a fool - the Taxpayers' union have had a petition running against >>> >>the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>> >>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
rises for more than two weeks as they demonstrate their non-partisan
approach.
Government cannot turn down the rise and the process that sets the rise >>> >>is
enshrined in legislation - there is no discretion in the process.
Government can decline it. That has been said many times - but like
the government you were not listening Tony.
Once done - it cannot be refused by the MP. It can only be donated in some >manner.
The authority that sets the payment to MPs has been working on this for >months,
perhaps longer.
Whether it should or not is another matter. I don't really have a
problem with paying MPs well - its a hard job and paying well reduces
the incentive to engage in corruption.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 07:13:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo they cannot decline it - provide proof or piss off you lying little boy.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the >>>>money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of aYou are a fool - the Taxpayers' union have had a petition running against the
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
rises for more than two weeks as they demonstrate their non-partisan approach.
Government cannot turn down the rise and the process that sets the rise is >>>enshrined in legislation - there is no discretion in the process.
Government can decline it. That has been said many times - but like
the government you were not listening Tony.
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >>>>Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!A tax benefit is optional, it is not automatic - anybody who wants one has to
claim it. So you are defaming Luxon by assuming he will claim tax relief. You
are so transparent it is pathetic.
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off as
On 2024-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by
donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
Last time I checked the that rebate on donations was 33.33%.
https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/individual-tax-credits/tax-credits-for-donations
Seems it is still the same amount.
Now the MP are forced to accept the pay increases. This issue has come up >before and several MPs have donated the rise to charity. Instead of banging >on about the person how about starting suggesting that the law is changed to >an opt out situation.Indeed what he is doing is within the law, but that does not make the
What Luxon is doing is within the law, and is it better than someone else
in more need of the money gets it rather than some one who is wealthy.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes that is still correct. One third is available on application provided the >amount is above the threshold.
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by
donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
Last time I checked the that rebate on donations was 33.33%.
Yes that is also correct.https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/individual-tax-credits/tax-credits-for-donations
Seems it is still the same amount.
Now the MP are forced to accept the pay increases.
And that is the point, this government is going in the other directionThis issue has come up
before and several MPs have donated the rise to charity. Instead of banging >>on about the person how about starting suggesting that the law is changed to >>an opt out situation.
What Luxon is doing is within the law, and is it better than someone else >>in more need of the money gets it rather than some one who is wealthy.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
On Wed, 1 May 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off as
The operative phrase being "everyone... I know". You and your
bureaucratic lot, all overpaid, deserve your cuts in real wage. But
less regulation means that the productive sector will be getting a
better chance to improve their outcomes.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.jj5rWRUQpamo0Q@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >says...
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:56:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyBecause he is actually separated from it - he had nothing to do with it. >> > - we already
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theSo you believe that there was some involvement by government in this
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >> >>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >> >>>Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
decision
-
yes you would believe that - it is all you have - desparation, and no real
criticism available to you.
The rises are entirely the province of an independent organisation and >> >>government has no say in it - this has happened before and you did not >> >>complain
when Labour MPs got pay rises.
You are a loser, pathetic, cheap and you have lied again.
Luxon is wanting to separate himself from the decision
know that he was not involved as the decision was made by anYou are derabged - what sort of political logic is that?
independent body, but what sort of example was he setting - he is
flaunting his wealth by saying he does not need it
- we know many doYou really have lost it.
in these trying times, but his choice of where the money is needed is
not the government to keep jobs, not cut health services, keep paying
benefits - no he wants to pay it to a charity - when government is
cutting charity by stopping school lunches. Why would he do that?
Because it gives him the tax relief on his charitable contribution -
this is the rich mans reflex - even when trying to appear generous he
comes across as self-interested, unthinking, unaware of the impact of
his actions.
No, I and the whole country have gained enormously since this government >> thrashed your lot last year.
You are not the only loser Tony, all of New Zealand is losing because
the current government is off track.
Pretty big generalisation there. But if we're accepting anecdotalWe the people of NZ will foot that cost and if the plans that the last government had were in place we would still have had to foot the same cost (just through a different mechanism). It is not a new cost despite the disinformation about 3 waters. It is a historic bill because of decades of failing to address infrastructure improvements.
evidence, the *only* person I know who has gained at all is a landlord
who is maybe a bit better off financially now, though I'm not sure the >return of interest deductability isn't going to being eaten up by rates >rises which are at least in part so high due to the council now having
to foot the entire bill for 3 waters.
As for 3 waters undemocratic
co-governance implications, well that is another good riddance feeling, >Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off as
living costs continue to rise and government and council services become >more expensive.That's what happens when you live with the damage the last government bestowed
upon us. These costs have not materialised by magic in the past 6 months for goodness sake.
Whatever size tax cuts are coming I would be surprisedI don't think there should be any tax cuts at this time.
if they were big enough to make a material difference.
On Wed, 1 May 2024 01:34:51 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo she froze the changes before 9Repeat BEFORE - for cretins in this world) the award was made. Once it is made it cannot be stopped.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes that is still correct. One third is available on application provided the >>amount is above the threshold.
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>> donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
Last time I checked the that rebate on donations was 33.33%.
Yes that is also correct.https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/individual-tax-credits/tax-credits-for-donations
Seems it is still the same amount.
Now the MP are forced to accept the pay increases.
No it is not - and that was demonstrated by Jacinda Ardern who passed, >without difficulty, a law to make no changes.
Who are tyou talking to now. Obviously not me because I didn't write that - you are demented,.And that is the point, this government is going in the other direction >directly with the law changes that they are making - first toThis issue has come up
before and several MPs have donated the rise to charity. Instead of banging >>>on about the person how about starting suggesting that the law is changed to >>>an opt out situation.
What Luxon is doing is within the law, and is it better than someone else >>>in more need of the money gets it rather than some one who is wealthy.
landlords, but they have also promised to cut the top tax rate
consistently - which is directly contrary to your sentiment that it is >"better than someone else in more need of the money gets it rather
than some one who is wealthy." Thank you for your acknowledgement
that the government is taking us off track.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
In article <part1of1.1.Vna2ntyYq4vkpQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzSo is that better than user pays?
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.jj5rWRUQpamo0Q@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzWe the people of NZ will foot that cost and if the plans that the last
says...
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:56:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyBecause he is actually separated from it - he had nothing to do with it. >> >> > - we already
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theSo you believe that there was some involvement by government in this
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >> >> >>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >> >> >>>Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
decision
-
yes you would believe that - it is all you have - desparation, and no >> >> >>real
criticism available to you.
The rises are entirely the province of an independent organisation and >> >> >>government has no say in it - this has happened before and you did not >> >> >>complain
when Labour MPs got pay rises.
You are a loser, pathetic, cheap and you have lied again.
Luxon is wanting to separate himself from the decision
know that he was not involved as the decision was made by anYou are derabged - what sort of political logic is that?
independent body, but what sort of example was he setting - he is
flaunting his wealth by saying he does not need it
- we know many doYou really have lost it.
in these trying times, but his choice of where the money is needed is
not the government to keep jobs, not cut health services, keep paying
benefits - no he wants to pay it to a charity - when government is
cutting charity by stopping school lunches. Why would he do that?
Because it gives him the tax relief on his charitable contribution -
this is the rich mans reflex - even when trying to appear generous he
comes across as self-interested, unthinking, unaware of the impact of
his actions.
No, I and the whole country have gained enormously since this government >> >> thrashed your lot last year.
You are not the only loser Tony, all of New Zealand is losing because
the current government is off track.
Pretty big generalisation there. But if we're accepting anecdotal
evidence, the *only* person I know who has gained at all is a landlord
who is maybe a bit better off financially now, though I'm not sure the
return of interest deductability isn't going to being eaten up by rates
rises which are at least in part so high due to the council now having
to foot the entire bill for 3 waters.
government had were in place we would still have had to foot the same cost >> (just through a different mechanism). It is not a new cost despite the
disinformation about 3 waters. It is a historic bill because of decades of >> failing to address infrastructure improvements.
Indeed the public will pay the cost one way or another. The previous
plan would have spread that cost over more people more evenly reducing
the maximum amount any one person has to pay.
Perhaps there is an unfair element to it though - people who liveExactly my point.
rurally depending on rainwater and a septic tank would have been paying
for something they don't directly benefit from. But thats not uncommon
for centrally funded services.
So - what has that to do with what I wrote? We are recoverning from 3 years of overspending and underinvestment - only the last government could achieve both at the same time.As for 3 waters undemocratic
co-governance implications, well that is another good riddance feeling,
Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off asThat's what happens when you live with the damage the last government >>bestowed
living costs continue to rise and government and council services become
more expensive.
upon us. These costs have not materialised by magic in the past 6 months for >> goodness sake.
Inflation and cost of living issues are present in many other countries
at the moment and aren't entirely the fault of the previous government.
While the previous government might have been able to do better toIOn sx months - are you really that naive?
reduce those impacts here, so far the current govenment has done nothing
to improve the situation.
Though perhaps there isn't a whole lot they usefully *can* do right now >without working against the reserve banks attempts to reduce inflation.
Whatever size tax cuts are coming I would be surprisedI don't think there should be any tax cuts at this time.
if they were big enough to make a material difference.
I agree. And I think it was unhelpful to reinstate interest
deductability so soon too.
But I expect tax cuts will come - Nicola Willis said she would quit if
she didn't deliver so she has kind of backed herself into a corner
there.
On Wed, 1 May 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off as
The operative phrase being "everyone... I know". You and your
bureaucratic lot, all overpaid, deserve your cuts in real wage. But
less regulation means that the productive sector will be getting a
better chance to improve their outcomes.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2024 22:47:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:He has said nothing of the sort - it is only in your mind.
On 2024-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>> donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
Last time I checked the that rebate on donations was 33.33%.
https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/individual-tax-credits/tax-credits-for-donations
Seems it is still the same amount.
Thanks Gordon yes you are correct. The amount he would receive in his
hand is after deduction of tax at the top rate; whatever he donates he
gets 33% of that off the tax he would otherwise pay.
the government is cutting for example payments to the disabled, he is >>effectively saying the government does not have enough money to pay
Now the MP are forced to accept the pay increases. This issue has come up >>>before and several MPs have donated the rise to charity. Instead of banging >>>on about the person how about starting suggesting that the law is changed to >>>an opt out situation.
What Luxon is doing is within the law, and is it better than someone else >>>in more need of the money gets it rather than some one who is wealthy. >>Indeed what he is doing is within the law, but that does not make the >>problem go away. What he is saying is that when people complain that
that because they are giving priority to other tax cuts - notably to
my mind are the tax cuts for landlords from which he will personally >>benefit, and the cut to the top tax rate from which he will again >>personally It is his government that has made those decisions - he
appears to be saying well charities are there to pick up those
shortfalls.
He is wrong - charities do a good job, but they cannotNo he cannot, ha can only donate it. You have been told but you do not read >English.
respond to the additional needs caused by changes to government
policy. He would be better decline the increase (which I am sure he
can do)
You are being a twonk - it is obvious that a Prime Minister will not, or donating the additional amount to government (which weThis is character assassination, you are a disgrace. Lies, defamation and abuse
know he can do). This is a man who has previously pointed out that he
is entitled - and indeed he is. This is a man that owns 7 houses - and
has arranged for one of them to have a very secure tenant - the
government pays $45,000 a year for him to use it as his electorate
office - I am told it is the most expensive electorate office in the >>country. We know that as Prime Minister he probably cannot get there
very often - you do have to wonder why it has to cost more than other >>offices - especially when he is receiving that money!
is all you have,
Really? Name one Labour MP who got a crown limousine to cross theMany Labour MPs have done the same - you are a disgrace.
You are right that he is not acting contrary to the law - and I agree
that being able to say that is important - for many National Party >>politicians over the years it appears to be the only test they pay
regard to. He was acting within the law when he took a crown limousine
from his apartment to Parliament following the election - I knew that
was not far but only recently discovered that it is literally across
the road!
I do find it interesting that very few want to comment on that
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
On 30 Apr 2024 22:47:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:He has said nothing of the sort - it is only in your mind.
On 2024-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by
donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
Last time I checked the that rebate on donations was 33.33%.
https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/individual-tax-credits/tax-credits-for-donations
Seems it is still the same amount.
Thanks Gordon yes you are correct. The amount he would receive in his
hand is after deduction of tax at the top rate; whatever he donates he
gets 33% of that off the tax he would otherwise pay.
problem go away. What he is saying is that when people complain that
Now the MP are forced to accept the pay increases. This issue has come up >>before and several MPs have donated the rise to charity. Instead of banging >>on about the person how about starting suggesting that the law is changed to >>an opt out situation.
What Luxon is doing is within the law, and is it better than someone else >>in more need of the money gets it rather than some one who is wealthy. >Indeed what he is doing is within the law, but that does not make the
the government is cutting for example payments to the disabled, he is >effectively saying the government does not have enough money to pay
that because they are giving priority to other tax cuts - notably to
my mind are the tax cuts for landlords from which he will personally
benefit, and the cut to the top tax rate from which he will again
personally It is his government that has made those decisions - he
appears to be saying well charities are there to pick up those
shortfalls.
He is wrong - charities do a good job, but they cannotNo he cannot, ha can only donate it. You have been told but you do not read English.
respond to the additional needs caused by changes to government
policy. He would be better decline the increase (which I am sure he
can do)
, or donating the additional amount to government (which weThis is character assassination, you are a disgrace. Lies, defamation and abuse is all you have,
know he can do). This is a man who has previously pointed out that he
is entitled - and indeed he is. This is a man that owns 7 houses - and
has arranged for one of them to have a very secure tenant - the
government pays $45,000 a year for him to use it as his electorate
office - I am told it is the most expensive electorate office in the
country. We know that as Prime Minister he probably cannot get there
very often - you do have to wonder why it has to cost more than other
offices - especially when he is receiving that money!
You are right that he is not acting contrary to the law - and I agreeMany Labour MPs have done the same - you are a disgrace.
that being able to say that is important - for many National Party >politicians over the years it appears to be the only test they pay
regard to. He was acting within the law when he took a crown limousine
from his apartment to Parliament following the election - I knew that
was not far but only recently discovered that it is literally across
the road!
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:50:48 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo they cannot - you are lying.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 07:13:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo they cannot decline it - provide proof or piss off you lying little boy.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the >>>>>money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a >>>>>tax deduction.You are a fool - the Taxpayers' union have had a petition running against >>>>the
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
rises for more than two weeks as they demonstrate their non-partisan >>>>approach.
Government cannot turn down the rise and the process that sets the rise is >>>>enshrined in legislation - there is no discretion in the process.
Government can decline it. That has been said many times - but like
the government you were not listening Tony.
Yes they can
- and that has been said many times. It is unusual, andNo that is wrong - individual M<Ps cannot refuse the payment. Period. It needs the government to freeze the entire thing before the payment is approved. Those are different things and your sliminess won't work.
that should be the case, but it was done by the Labour-led government
during Covid - exceptional circumstances. but lying about what they
can be done not exceptional from yourself either . . .
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >>>>>Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!A tax benefit is optional, it is not automatic - anybody who wants one has >>>>to
claim it. So you are defaming Luxon by assuming he will claim tax relief. >>>>You
are so transparent it is pathetic.
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
On Wed, 1 May 2024 05:24:09 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are the one that says an MP can refuse the payment - you provide the evidence.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30 Apr 2024 22:47:46 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:He has said nothing of the sort - it is only in your mind.
On 2024-04-30, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>>> donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
Last time I checked the that rebate on donations was 33.33%.
https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/individual-tax-credits/tax-credits-for-donations
Seems it is still the same amount.
Thanks Gordon yes you are correct. The amount he would receive in his >>>hand is after deduction of tax at the top rate; whatever he donates he >>>gets 33% of that off the tax he would otherwise pay.
the government is cutting for example payments to the disabled, he is >>>effectively saying the government does not have enough money to pay
Now the MP are forced to accept the pay increases. This issue has come up >>>>before and several MPs have donated the rise to charity. Instead of banging >>>>on about the person how about starting suggesting that the law is changed to
an opt out situation.
What Luxon is doing is within the law, and is it better than someone else >>>>in more need of the money gets it rather than some one who is wealthy. >>>Indeed what he is doing is within the law, but that does not make the >>>problem go away. What he is saying is that when people complain that
that because they are giving priority to other tax cuts - notably to
my mind are the tax cuts for landlords from which he will personally >>>benefit, and the cut to the top tax rate from which he will again >>>personally It is his government that has made those decisions - he >>>appears to be saying well charities are there to pick up those >>>shortfalls.
He is wrong - charities do a good job, but they cannotNo he cannot, ha can only donate it. You have been told but you do not read >>English.
respond to the additional needs caused by changes to government
policy. He would be better decline the increase (which I am sure he
can do)
Perhaps you could provide some evidence . . .
Twonk is a translation of Rich80105 into Swahili -which to the good folks that use that language implies critinism.You are being a twonk - it is obvious that a Prime Minister will not, or donating the additional amount to government (which weThis is character assassination, you are a disgrace. Lies, defamation and >>abuse
know he can do). This is a man who has previously pointed out that he
is entitled - and indeed he is. This is a man that owns 7 houses - and >>>has arranged for one of them to have a very secure tenant - the >>>government pays $45,000 a year for him to use it as his electorate
office - I am told it is the most expensive electorate office in the >>>country. We know that as Prime Minister he probably cannot get there
very often - you do have to wonder why it has to cost more than other >>>offices - especially when he is receiving that money!
is all you have,
be able to be in his electorate office as much as the majority of
electorate MPs who are not Ministers.
Not what I said and you know it. I was referring to your overall point which is that both sides of the house have or have not taken advantage of their rights. Both have. You are a disgrace.Really? Name one Labour MP who got a crown limousine to cross theMany Labour MPs have done the same - you are a disgrace.
You are right that he is not acting contrary to the law - and I agree >>>that being able to say that is important - for many National Party >>>politicians over the years it appears to be the only test they pay
regard to. He was acting within the law when he took a crown limousine >>>from his apartment to Parliament following the election - I knew that
was not far but only recently discovered that it is literally across
the road!
street! Or even any MP from any party!
It is a stupid question and one that is loaded with abusiveness.I do find it interesting that very few want to comment on that
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >>>>> Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
question . . .
On Wed, 01 May 2024 04:07:15 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:Absolutely, all a direct result of the last 3 years of the Labour government. >I know of three nurses that moved to Australia
On Wed, 1 May 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I thought more of people I know such as the owner of a restaurant who
Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off as
The operative phrase being "everyone... I know". You and your
bureaucratic lot, all overpaid, deserve your cuts in real wage. But
less regulation means that the productive sector will be getting a
better chance to improve their outcomes.
has had to lay off staff as custom slowed, and has now closed the
business. Nothing unusual about that - eating places do have a higher >turnover than other businesses, but I am aware of reports of building >companies closing;
about three weeks ago; one friend who was doing house maintenance andSee above. Labour has a lot to answer for and they will do so for some time.
house security has also moved to Australia as he found it hard to
attract new business; another is a system specialist who now works
for a USA employer and has moved to a small town to get lower rent -
it has adequate internet which is his main need, but he is lost to the
New Zealand banking sector which needs people with his skills in
anti-fraud issues. I know the parent of two school age children who
will start driving them through town to their schools as well as him
to work as it is now cheaper to drive than pay three bus fares each
way. And I also know a lot of people who are eating cheaper meals,
doing without more , and preparing for higher rates / rents as the
government moves away from income tax to putting more on local bodies
to hit those with less more than if they funded spending through
progressive income tax. Waiting lists in hospitals are also
lengthening; private hospitals are expecting to expand to do more for
the higher income people who can afford to use them . . . Farmers are
also saying that times are tough - who besides landlords are in this >'productive' sector that will be getting a better chance to improve
their outcomes?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated
Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
Really Rich could you sink any lower with your anti National posts..
On Wed, 01 May 2024 04:07:15 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I thought more of people I know such as the owner of a restaurant who
Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off as
The operative phrase being "everyone... I know". You and your
bureaucratic lot, all overpaid, deserve your cuts in real wage. But
less regulation means that the productive sector will be getting a
better chance to improve their outcomes.
has had to lay off staff as custom slowed, and has now closed the
business. Nothing unusual about that - eating places do have a higher turnover than other businesses, but I am aware of reports of building companies closing; I know of three nurses that moved to Australia
about three weeks ago; one friend who was doing house maintenance and
house security has also moved to Australia as he found it hard to
attract new business; another is a system specialist who now works
for a USA employer and has moved to a small town to get lower rent -
it has adequate internet which is his main need, but he is lost to the
New Zealand banking sector which needs people with his skills in
anti-fraud issues. I know the parent of two school age children who
will start driving them through town to their schools as well as him
to work as it is now cheaper to drive than pay three bus fares each
way. And I also know a lot of people who are eating cheaper meals,
doing without more , and preparing for higher rates / rents as the
government moves away from income tax to putting more on local bodies
to hit those with less more than if they funded spending through
progressive income tax. Waiting lists in hospitals are also
lengthening; private hospitals are expecting to expand to do more for
the higher income people who can afford to use them . . . Farmers are
also saying that times are tough - who besides landlords are in this 'productive' sector that will be getting a better chance to improve
their outcomes?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 04:07:15 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:Absolutely, all a direct result of the last 3 years of the Labour government. All since the end of February this year . . .
On Wed, 1 May 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote: >>>>Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off asI thought more of people I know such as the owner of a restaurant who
The operative phrase being "everyone... I know". You and your >>>bureaucratic lot, all overpaid, deserve your cuts in real wage. But
less regulation means that the productive sector will be getting a
better chance to improve their outcomes.
has had to lay off staff as custom slowed, and has now closed the
business. Nothing unusual about that - eating places do have a higher >>turnover than other businesses, but I am aware of reports of building >>companies closing;
I know of three nurses that moved to AustraliaSee above. Labour has a lot to answer for and they will do so for some time. All since february this year
about three weeks ago; one friend who was doing house maintenance and >>house security has also moved to Australia as he found it hard to
attract new business; another is a system specialist who now works
for a USA employer and has moved to a small town to get lower rent -
it has adequate internet which is his main need, but he is lost to the
New Zealand banking sector which needs people with his skills in
anti-fraud issues. I know the parent of two school age children who
will start driving them through town to their schools as well as him
to work as it is now cheaper to drive than pay three bus fares each
way. And I also know a lot of people who are eating cheaper meals,
doing without more , and preparing for higher rates / rents as the >>government moves away from income tax to putting more on local bodies
to hit those with less more than if they funded spending through >>progressive income tax. Waiting lists in hospitals are also
lengthening; private hospitals are expecting to expand to do more for
the higher income people who can afford to use them . . . Farmers are
also saying that times are tough - who besides landlords are in this >>'productive' sector that will be getting a better chance to improve
their outcomes?
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.jj5rWRUQpamo0Q@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...We the people of NZ will foot that cost and if the plans that the last government had were in place we would still have had to foot the same cost (just through a different mechanism). It is not a new cost despite the disinformation about 3 waters. It is a historic bill because of decades of failing to address infrastructure improvements. As for 3 waters undemocratic co-governance implications, well that is another good riddance feeling,
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:56:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyBecause he is actually separated from it - he had nothing to do with it. >>> > - we already
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate theSo you believe that there was some involvement by government in this
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>> >>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >>> >>>Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
decision
-
yes you would believe that - it is all you have - desparation, and no real
criticism available to you.
The rises are entirely the province of an independent organisation and >>> >>government has no say in it - this has happened before and you did not >>> >>complain
when Labour MPs got pay rises.
You are a loser, pathetic, cheap and you have lied again.
Luxon is wanting to separate himself from the decision
know that he was not involved as the decision was made by anYou are derabged - what sort of political logic is that?
independent body, but what sort of example was he setting - he is
flaunting his wealth by saying he does not need it
- we know many doYou really have lost it.
in these trying times, but his choice of where the money is needed is
not the government to keep jobs, not cut health services, keep paying
benefits - no he wants to pay it to a charity - when government is
cutting charity by stopping school lunches. Why would he do that?
Because it gives him the tax relief on his charitable contribution -
this is the rich mans reflex - even when trying to appear generous he
comes across as self-interested, unthinking, unaware of the impact of
his actions.
No, I and the whole country have gained enormously since this government >>> thrashed your lot last year.
You are not the only loser Tony, all of New Zealand is losing because
the current government is off track.
Pretty big generalisation there. But if we're accepting anecdotal
evidence, the *only* person I know who has gained at all is a landlord
who is maybe a bit better off financially now, though I'm not sure the >>return of interest deductability isn't going to being eaten up by rates >>rises which are at least in part so high due to the council now having
to foot the entire bill for 3 waters.
Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off asThat's what happens when you live with the damage the last government bestowed
living costs continue to rise and government and council services become >>more expensive.
upon us. These costs have not materialised by magic in the past 6 months for goodness sake.
Whatever size tax cuts are coming I would be surprisedI don't think there should be any tax cuts at this time.
if they were big enough to make a material difference.
They have stuck to their promises and are doing
what we, the electors, asked for - that really sticks in your craw doesn't >>>it?
On 2024-05-01, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You don't need to apologise for pointing something out, you always do so politely. It is the abusive way that one other here behaves that is the issue.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.jj5rWRUQpamo0Q@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...We the people of NZ will foot that cost and if the plans that the last
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:56:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyBecause he is actually separated from it - he had nothing to do with it. >>>> > - we already
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the >>>> >>>money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>> >>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a >>>> >>>tax deduction.So you believe that there was some involvement by government in this >>>> >>decision
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >>>> >>>Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
-
yes you would believe that - it is all you have - desparation, and no >>>> >>real
criticism available to you.
The rises are entirely the province of an independent organisation and >>>> >>government has no say in it - this has happened before and you did not >>>> >>complain
when Labour MPs got pay rises.
You are a loser, pathetic, cheap and you have lied again.
Luxon is wanting to separate himself from the decision
know that he was not involved as the decision was made by anYou are derabged - what sort of political logic is that?
independent body, but what sort of example was he setting - he is
flaunting his wealth by saying he does not need it
- we know many doYou really have lost it.
in these trying times, but his choice of where the money is needed is >>>> >not the government to keep jobs, not cut health services, keep paying >>>> >benefits - no he wants to pay it to a charity - when government is
cutting charity by stopping school lunches. Why would he do that?
Because it gives him the tax relief on his charitable contribution -
this is the rich mans reflex - even when trying to appear generous he >>>> >comes across as self-interested, unthinking, unaware of the impact of >>>> >his actions.
No, I and the whole country have gained enormously since this government >>>> thrashed your lot last year.
You are not the only loser Tony, all of New Zealand is losing because >>>> >the current government is off track.
Pretty big generalisation there. But if we're accepting anecdotal >>>evidence, the *only* person I know who has gained at all is a landlord >>>who is maybe a bit better off financially now, though I'm not sure the >>>return of interest deductability isn't going to being eaten up by rates >>>rises which are at least in part so high due to the council now having
to foot the entire bill for 3 waters.
government had were in place we would still have had to foot the same cost >> (just through a different mechanism). It is not a new cost despite the
disinformation about 3 waters. It is a historic bill because of decades of >> failing to address infrastructure improvements. As for 3 waters undemocratic >> co-governance implications, well that is another good riddance feeling,
It is more a case of maintaining the existing infrustructure. New pipelines >are pid for by the developers in subdivisions. True this does not cover >upgrading the mains or PS required for the transport of the waters.
(Sorry to niggle, your point is correct overall)
Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off as >>>living costs continue to rise and government and council services become >>>more expensive.That's what happens when you live with the damage the last government >>bestowed
upon us. These costs have not materialised by magic in the past 6 months for >> goodness sake.
Whatever size tax cuts are coming I would be surprisedI don't think there should be any tax cuts at this time.
if they were big enough to make a material difference.
They have stuck to their promises and are doing
what we, the electors, asked for - that really sticks in your craw doesn't >>>>it?
On Wed, 1 May 2024 06:31:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes dumbo, as a direct result of three years of Labour overspending and under performance, not to mention the attempts to destroy democracy in this country/
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 04:07:15 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:Absolutely, all a direct result of the last 3 years of the Labour government. >All since the end of February this year . . .
On Wed, 1 May 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>Everyone else I know is continuing to become worse and worse off asI thought more of people I know such as the owner of a restaurant who
The operative phrase being "everyone... I know". You and your >>>>bureaucratic lot, all overpaid, deserve your cuts in real wage. But >>>>less regulation means that the productive sector will be getting a >>>>better chance to improve their outcomes.
has had to lay off staff as custom slowed, and has now closed the >>>business. Nothing unusual about that - eating places do have a higher >>>turnover than other businesses, but I am aware of reports of building >>>companies closing;
No that is wrong, they haven't apologised at all so you are wrong as well as dense.I know of three nurses that moved to AustraliaSee above. Labour has a lot to answer for and they will do so for some time. >All since february this year
about three weeks ago; one friend who was doing house maintenance and >>>house security has also moved to Australia as he found it hard to
attract new business; another is a system specialist who now works
for a USA employer and has moved to a small town to get lower rent -
it has adequate internet which is his main need, but he is lost to the >>>New Zealand banking sector which needs people with his skills in >>>anti-fraud issues. I know the parent of two school age children who
will start driving them through town to their schools as well as him
to work as it is now cheaper to drive than pay three bus fares each
way. And I also know a lot of people who are eating cheaper meals,
doing without more , and preparing for higher rates / rents as the >>>government moves away from income tax to putting more on local bodies
to hit those with less more than if they funded spending through >>>progressive income tax. Waiting lists in hospitals are also
lengthening; private hospitals are expecting to expand to do more for
the higher income people who can afford to use them . . . Farmers are >>>also saying that times are tough - who besides landlords are in this >>>'productive' sector that will be getting a better chance to improve
their outcomes?
On 2024-05-01, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:He is just nasty and has zero ability to demonstrate whether a government is performing well or otherwise. It is a skills and character issue.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
So Luxon thinks he can avoid criticism by saying he will donate the
money to Charity - how typical of the wealthy - pretending he cares by >>>donating to charity, knowing that it gives him 39% back by way of a
tax deduction.
It will be interesting to see if the "Taxpayers Union" gives him
advice again - this time to donate the money back to the Consolidated >>>Fund, rather than looking for a tax benefit!
Does Luxon ever think about what he is doing?
Really Rich could you sink any lower with your anti National posts..
Well, NZF and Act also get a mention at times.
Rich really has trouble in not playing the man, when he should be commenting >on progress and why Labours way is great/better.
Stuff also seems to be verging on this at times as well.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 09:42:24 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,060 |
| Messages: | 6,416,673 |