Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Mathematical Mystery Man

Update: Not even the Lefties believe him. Here's Idiot Savant

I just wish Labour had presented it more carefully, as something that would take them a few years to implement after they found out how much more revenue a crackdown would yield, rather than exposing themselves in this manner. Overpromising and relying on magical thinking benefits no-one; it just leads to disappointment and adds to the public's cynicism about politicians. And that's something Labour should be trying to avoid.
Laarrrrf my arrrrse off!

He must have learned all he knows about taxation from Yassir Arafat because according to reports of his speech today he's going to line up everybody who makes more than $100k and machine gun them to death.

Our mystery man is going to give away $1.3 billion on tax cuts to the nations welfare bludgers, dumb arses and dead beats who vote Labour and he's promised he's going to recover the same amount from Michael Cullen's 'rich pricks.'

Labour is promising the first $5000 earned will be tax free by the end of its first term in government - but those earning top dollars will pay more.

It would introduce an across the board 'tax free zone' so earners paid no tax on up to their first $5000 earnings, at an estimated cost of $1.3 billion.

Although likely to be initially introduced at a lower level, Labour would look to increase that zone to reach $5000 during its first term in government.

However, it would also introduce a new top tax rate for those earning at least six-figure salaries, although Labour had not yet decided what that would be.

Mr Goff said Labour would not pay for its tax reforms through borrowing, raising GST or selling off assets. Instead it would do so by "claiming back some of the windfall tax cuts from the very top earners".

He said the current 33 cents in the dollar was low by international standards.

Although the new top tax rate, or at what level of income it would set in, was not yet decided, Mr Goff said it would only apply to those earning at least more than $100,000 a year.

It's no bloody wonder Labour has not decided what the top tax rate will be. If you look at the IRD graph below, you will see the number of tax payers with incomes greater than $100k. A generous interpretation of the graph would have say 5,000 taxpayers at most with an average income of say $120k. It is a very very thin blue line, folks.

When you do the maths, you will see that Philly will need to apply a fat cats rich prick tax at the rate of, wait for it, drum roll...........

$13.00 for every dollar of income over $100,000.

Don't you believe me?

5000 people x $20,000 income = $100,000,000.

To raise tax revenue of 1,300,000,000 from $100,000,000 requires the tax payer to cough up $13.00 tax for every one dollar of income.

There can now be no doubt.

Phil's phucked.

The only gap bigger than the one between his front teeth is the one in his brain.


JC said...

For 2010 I make it 141,000 earning over $10,000



Adolf Fiinkensein said...

JC I think I'd rely on the IRD figures which refer to 'people' (individual tax payers) whereas the treasury figures which refer to households.

I suspect the treasury figures might not take into account income splitting with spouses.

PS presume you mean $100,000 not $10,000

Anonymous said...

Nice work, your calculation assumes there's no tax above $120,000 at all.

I'm sure the real fat cats (those earning over 250k) will really appreciate that.

Have you seen how steep that curve over 100k really is and what the income distribution actually looks like?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Anon 4.51

You are wrong. My calcs assume an average income of $120k for those over $100k. Most of them in fact will be between $100k and $105k.

But let's be generous. Assume I'm waaaaaaay out wrong and the average is $140k. The marginal rate will still be $600%. That is $6.00 tax paid for every one dollar of income.

Bloody good, eh?

This speech will be the final nail in Goff's coffin.

He will be rolled very soon.

Anonymous said...

Progressive Taxation is theft. Any proponent of it is guilty of treason.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

When will we see Fran Mould on TV shrieking:-

"When are you going to resign Mr Goff? When are you going to resign?"

Anonymous said...

I think you might want to downland the excel tables from the site you got those graphs from. There are about 130 000 ppl earning > $100 000

Anonymous said...

Goff is an idiot plying for the votes of idiots! Democracy's basic flaw is that it counts heads but not what is in them.


showmethetaxcut said...

Let me get this straight.

National shore up the low to middle income earners by reducing their effective rate of tax from 33% to 17.5% and Goofy thinks he can convert the floating voters by offering them an extra $10.00 a week? Pfft.

Goofy is an idiot. Engaging in class warfare will simply make him the most hated man in New Zealand.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Anon 645. I'm much obliged for your assistance but there's something wrong with your maths.

The spreadsheet indicates 50,090 people earning over $100k with aggregate income of $8.6 billion

So their aggregate 'over $100k' can be seen to be 3.59 billion.

accordingly, to raise $1.3 billion extra revenue, Goff will have to tax these people at the current rate PLUS 37%.

That means the fat cats rich pricks tax will be 70 cents in the dollar. The tax avoidance industry will vote en masse for Labour and they will make a fortune.

Of course Goff won't get his tax revenue because 95% of the tax will be avoided.

Anonymous said...

I think you are looking at the 2001 tab of that sheet.

KiwiGirl said...

"I think you might want to downland the excel tables from the site you got those graphs from. There are about 130 000 ppl earning > $100 000"

And I wonder what percentage of those work in the public service.

Heine said...

Better book the rooms for the victory party Adolf.

Rich Prick said...

Goff is now spinning it that anyone earning over $100k has received a windfall and ought to be taxed harder. New flash sunshine, we work hard for it, it is not a "windfall". Arsehole.

Spider_Pig said...

This post is a perfect example of ensuring you use correct information to back up the conclusion, i.e. use the raw data instead of a chart that doesn't (for some reason) show income above $120k.

Although I despise the Left, a billion dollars additional revenue would require ~38% tax rate if assessed at income over $100k ($22 billion taxable income, current tax revenue of $7.4 billion at 33%, requires 38% rate to increase revenue to $8.4 billion).

However, Goff indicates it will be set well into 6 figures. 45% is required for income over $150k. 55% if income over $250k.

These calculations assume no tax avoidance! Conservatively I think you could assume 50% income avoidance at those tax rates.

Spider_Pig said...

The salient point is that, for example, those earning over $100k make up 3.8% of all taxpayers, yet pay 27% of total income tax. To accuse these rich pricks of bludging is outrageous. Philk obviously doesn't know the definition of the word.