zlacker

The whole point of a business is to make a profit: I worked hard because I am middle aged and had no retirement savings - my other choice was FIRE or to suck on the government's teat. Running a "business" for status is defined as a hobby.

1 in 10 businesses survive. Why bother starting one if you don't get your 10x return? If you've got one, why bother trying to be a serial entrepreneur if it's all gonna be taxed? Do you think New Zealand should leave the entrepreneurship to the USA and we can just buy what we need from US multinationals?

> The incentive is it’s still a fuckton more money.

It just isn't. The people I know earning way more than I don't have anything significantly better. Mostly a nice house and a nice car and if they're lucky a bach.

Marginal incentives matter. Over 50% of my personal income goes on taxes including GST.

My life is similar to most any professional worker. I have never owned a new car. I know solo-mums that didn't work for over a decade with more equity in their home than me. My biggest expense is tax, my second biggest is my mortgage.

> The amount of money wasted by the rich

Just the rich eh? Everybody else is so much more careful! Watch out with your stereotypes - I'm guessing you don't like them applied to yourself?

>>roboca+(OP)
Because your business doesn’t just start earning 20m and that’s still only 150000. Are you arguing against fake numbers?

>>xcrunn+R2
> fake numbers

no: - I'm using the numbers in the quote in my comment, and from the link I gave you.

Taxation rules create incentives and disincentives. If you earn a salary you are usually ignorant of those incentives because you don't experience them. From what I see the attitude is "fuck everyone who is better off than me".

Our rules need to encourage people to make NZ better off. Not have the incentive to stop once you have gotten a $20m home: https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/residential/lifestyle-p...

Anyone that owns businesses worth $20m is already taxed on income. Giving a big middle finger to people that build businesses is silly.

Disclosure: I am not anywhere near the big salary or wealth numbers we've mentioned.

>>roboca+Dj
Your argument against a non-existent $150,000 yearly tax is that a single person would need to pay that if they owned a property two thirds the size of the Vatican, on the ocean, 45 minutes from the biggest city centre in a 2000km radius.

No wait, that wasn't the argument here, your argument is that they wouldn't want to accumulate even more wealth.

> Not have the incentive to stop once you have gotten a $20m home

Minor point, that's not a home, that's two homes in the same listing. I'd argue that accumulating property wealth beyond a house seems like it ought to be disincentivized at least a little bit, but evidently you're under the impression that either poor people don't deserve the opportunity or that land is in infinite supply.