Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 66730	2006-03-05 21:05:00	Proof, that most of us on middle-incomes are going backwards	KiwiTT_NZ (233)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
435818	2006-03-05 21:05:00	"In November 1989, the average worker earned $529.98 a week before tax, according to the Department of Statistics Quarterly Employment Survey. In June last year, the average weekly income from wages and salaries was $592 a week, an increase of only 11.7% in 16 years. Allowing for inflation, that means average pay is $148 a week less than it was in 1989. " - LINK (www.stuff.co.nz) What will the goverment do to fix this ? Nothing, just tax us more	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
435819	2006-03-05 23:07:00	Can't resist this one, see Cicero and Winston respond. :) Well, it's like this, first of all you need a long memory, and to realise that tax rates were much higher then (1989) than now November 1989 was just 5 years after Roger Douglas leading the New Right came in with the 3rd? Labour Government, a so-called socialist party, somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan. But already in those 5 years the destruction of manufacturing was well under way, we had had the Equiticorps, Goldcorps, and all the other ....corps manipulating money like it was going out of fashion until black friday stock market crash. Already people in full time employment were having to re-apply for their jobs, and/or being booted out the door and cheaper labour taken on, people only too glad to get any sort of job for any sort of lowest pay to try to pay the mortgage. The era of people trying to get several part time jobs to make ends meet was well and truly with us, over 200,000 unemployed. Things only got worse with the 1990 National Government, which in order to retain credibility had to move even further to the right under the mother of all financial ministers Ruth Richardson, mother figure to young upstart Upton who made a mess of every portfolio he was given and had to be bailed out each time by big daddy Bill Birch, and so I could go on...... We can now see, and have yet more proof, of the way the rich have got richer, and the poor poorer, as an instrument of each successive governments policy, and using unemployment as one of those instruments. Sits back to await comments: :thumbs:	Terry Porritt (14)
435820	2006-03-06 00:49:00	Much as we'd like to blame governments, their main failing has been to tell Kiwis about the real world . In the long term, governments of whatever stripe can do little about wages . That is because we are a small island nation far away from markets without anything unique to sell . The decline of the $NZ over 30 years is hard evidence of this . Wages are a share of what we as a nation sell overseas . The price has been declining for years and without something valuable to put on world markets, we aren't going to reverse the trend . It isn't hopeless by any means . NZ has a valuable marketing image and needs to cash in . Furthermore wages are only part of the deal . This is a beautiful country and we have an enviable lifestyle . Why else do British police emigrate and Kiwi OEs come home? As for the rich v poor - taxing people down to an average can be done but stifles any effort to do better . I hate cliches but instead of arguing about slicing, we need to grow the cake . Our problem is succinctly encapsulated by Kiwitas - "What will the goverment do to fix this ? Nothing, just tax us more" NZers want someone else, usually the government, to fix everything . Instead we need to work together without being envious that someone might do a little better .	Winston001 (3612)
435821	2006-03-06 00:52:00	In the middle ages you worked on Mondays. Once a year (harvest) you worked an entire week. The rest of the time was your own. And before someone mentions serfdom, it was in fact a type of unemployment benefit. The Lords were required to provide a living for the serfs if they were unable to manage for whatever reason, and when they got back on their feet, they went back home. Then the Protestants came along and decided that it was all laziness and godly to work your behind off for a pittance.	pctek (84)
435822	2006-03-06 01:14:00	In the middle ages you worked on Mondays. Once a year (harvest) you worked an entire week. The rest of the time was your own. And before someone mentions serfdom, it was in fact a type of unemployment benefit. The Lords were required to provide a living for the serfs if they were unable to manage for whatever reason, and when they got back on their feet, they went back home. Then the Protestants came along and decided that it was all laziness and godly to work your behind off for a pittance. Are you for real? Do you actually believe this twaddle?	PaulD (232)
435823	2006-03-06 01:18:00	I think you are a bit hard on NZers. "Waiting for the Government to do something." We voted for a government to do something. Lets make something clear here first. The NZers have voted for a government for them to look after their interests. If they are not there for that reason then lets get rid of them. Are they there for any other reason ? The reason we have governments is so people don't take things into their own hands, plus to look out for individuals less able to look after themselves. We have representative-democracy, therefore we don't need to form our own action plans; plus we are less able to do things. If we were to start a "grass-root" movement, we get labelled as radicals or activists and have no say really. We could try to change the parties from within, but there is too much in-fighting and party politics getting in the way there. Options Please ?!?!?	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
435824	2006-03-06 03:23:00	Well, it's like this, first of all you need a long memory, and to realise that tax rates were much higher then (1989) than nowYeah Right !!! 40.5% vs 39% not much difference Top Tax Rates 1975-1984 = 60% (National) 1985-1986 = 66% (Labour) 1987 = 57% ( " ) 1988 = 48% ( " ) 1989 = 40.5% ( " ) 1990-1999 = 33% (National) 2000-2006 = 39% (Labour) OECD Report (www.taxpolicycenter.org)	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
435825	2006-03-06 03:33:00	Are you for real? Do you actually believe this twaddle? www.swiss.ai.mit.edu	pctek (84)
435826	2006-03-06 04:01:00	Yeah Right !!! 40.5% vs 39% not much difference Top Tax Rates 1975-1984 = 60% (National) 1985-1986 = 66% (Labour) 1987 = 57% ( " ) 1988 = 48% ( " ) 1989 = 40.5% ( " ) 1990-1999 = 33% (National) 2000-2006 = 39% (Labour) OECD Report (www.taxpolicycenter.org) :), Right, you proved my memory wrong! I was thinking of the 66% rate :) However, be that as it may, so to speak, despite all the reforms and hype of Douglas, Richardson, "There is no other way" Bolger, and Shipley, we have not seen a high wage, low unemployment economy. Instead, the country seems to have focussed on low return low tech products like growing and selling pine logs for pulp, instead of high tech high value. The reason I mentioned Upton is that it was due to his policies that some or most of the blame for the current shortage of scientists can be laid. Edit: still a bit of edit time. Of course those whose wages/salaries/incomes rose by leaps and bounds, whilst the hoi-poloi stagnated, were the likes of David Richwhite, Michael Fay and their ilk, and the legions of government appointed CEOs of whom some were booted out with golden handshakes, then of we must not forget our favourite, Telecoms CEO.	Terry Porritt (14)
435827	2006-03-06 04:16:00	Yeah Right !!! 40.5% vs 39% not much difference Top Tax Rates 1975-1984 = 60% (National) 1985-1986 = 66% (Labour) 1987 = 57% ( " ) 1988 = 48% ( " ) 1989 = 40.5% ( " ) 1990-1999 = 33% (National) 2000-2006 = 39% (Labour) OECD Report (www.taxpolicycenter.org)Yeah, but how much was the lower-middle tax rate back then? Ours is currently something like 19% (if you're on that $590 a week that'd be the tax rate you're on), so comparing the top rates of now to then is irrelevant as the thread is about middle-income earners... unless the middle income tax rate back then was the same as now? Mike.	Mike (15)
1 2 3 4 5 6