3 ms·

> Keep in mind how low a 30% tax rate is Well if it's so low I wouldn't mind sending you my paypal. You can always send me some supplimental money if you don't

> Keep in mind how low a 30% tax rate is Well if it's so low I wouldn't mind sending you my paypal. You can always send me some supplimental money if you don't think the government is taking enough from you. We can think of it as wealth redistribution to a poor college student. > It's low relative to the OECD If I'm focused on isolating myself from everyone why would I care about what other OECD members are doing? > depending on your politics, needs to go up or have some higher brackets for the wealthier I don't think someone, who is attempting to isolate themselves from other people, would want to deal with this sort of thinking. If this is how New Zealander's think then they're not going to see many hermits swimming their way over the pond and lining up for land. These processes will undoutably create the need to interact with other people to prevent yourself from being arrested or fined heavily. This is the exact opposite of what someone who would like to isolate themselves from the rest of the world would want.

lostlogin 10y ago
Some of us down here are plenty happy to pay for our share and would vote to increase what's taken to improve services. We don't need more immigration, we need infrastructure and need to pay for it. Taxes help pay for university here (and I wish it covered more of the cost) so if you were studying here, your partly covered. Why do you think we're isolationist? No part of NZ foreign policy is intended to be like that.
- gravypod 10y ago
  Why not just then vote against tax hikes and instead donate your money to the government or to charity organizations? When you vote for tax hikes you're essentially reaching into your pocket, taking out money, and giving it to someone. Then you're reaching into your neighbor's pocket, taking some more out, and giving it to yourself and that other third party. Why not let people choose to give their money? Why vote to force them to give their money?
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    Because I don't believe that would work. Where has it been tried and worked?
    - gravypod 10y ago
      Where has it been tried? It seems most people try and jump to their neighbors wallets. Despite that, charity is still a huge factor for changing the world. The B&M Gates foundation is one of many organizations that sacrifices gains to try and make the world a better place for ideological reasons. No dipping into someone else's pocket needed. The fact that a majority of people are willing to vote for more taxes is proof that this is either a) not needed because those people would donate because they think it's important, or b) the majority is just using the fact that they're the majorty as a reason it's ok to take from others.
      - lostlogin 10y ago
        I don't see it as jumping to others pocket - I see it as paying my way and paying a little towards others too. Relying on some mythical good guys to pay for us all seems a little hopeful.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >> Why not let people choose to give their money? Why vote to force them to give their money? Taxes are not your money. They are, by their very definition, money you owe the government. Meaning they are the government's money. They just happen to temporarily enter your pocket before leaving it again for their rightful owner. To answer your question though, charity is not a substitute for taxation because charity is not scalable.

lostlogin 10y ago

Some of us down here are plenty happy to pay for our share and would vote to increase what's taken to improve services. We don't need more immigration, we need infrastructure and need to pay for it. Taxes help pay for university here (and I wish it covered more of the cost) so if you were studying here, your partly covered. Why do you think we're isolationist? No part of NZ foreign policy is intended to be like that.

gravypod 10y ago
Why not just then vote against tax hikes and instead donate your money to the government or to charity organizations? When you vote for tax hikes you're essentially reaching into your pocket, taking out money, and giving it to someone. Then you're reaching into your neighbor's pocket, taking some more out, and giving it to yourself and that other third party. Why not let people choose to give their money? Why vote to force them to give their money?
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Because I don't believe that would work. Where has it been tried and worked?
  - gravypod 10y ago
    Where has it been tried? It seems most people try and jump to their neighbors wallets. Despite that, charity is still a huge factor for changing the world. The B&M Gates foundation is one of many organizations that sacrifices gains to try and make the world a better place for ideological reasons. No dipping into someone else's pocket needed. The fact that a majority of people are willing to vote for more taxes is proof that this is either a) not needed because those people would donate because they think it's important, or b) the majority is just using the fact that they're the majorty as a reason it's ok to take from others.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      I don't see it as jumping to others pocket - I see it as paying my way and paying a little towards others too. Relying on some mythical good guys to pay for us all seems a little hopeful.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >> Why not let people choose to give their money? Why vote to force them to give their money? Taxes are not your money. They are, by their very definition, money you owe the government. Meaning they are the government's money. They just happen to temporarily enter your pocket before leaving it again for their rightful owner. To answer your question though, charity is not a substitute for taxation because charity is not scalable.