Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
I thought this was pretty sweet. Counting method & details here. I'll take my chances with his satanic majesty, thanks.
Labels: death, religious nutjobs, satan
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
When is a pay increase not a pay increase?
This post is prompted by a similar question posed by Yamis (well, identical really) two posts down, and the comments that ensued. I thought I'd bump them up here 'cos I kind of like where it's going. In an intellectual sense, not a financial one, obviously.
It was all prompted by this observation from Yamis:
We then got to talking about how much pay increases of 4% and 6% meant for individuals in our chosen professions.
There's the kick in the gonads, folks: Pay increase - tax & ACC levy - inflation is often pretty marginal in terms of a net improvement in your financial situation. Pay increase - tax & ACC levy - inflation - cut to WFF entitlements - cut to Accommodation Supplement = sweet fuck all, and only a marginal improvement on no pay increase at all.
Or, as Yamis put it:
People seem to welcome pay increases with enthusiasm, but things like marginal tax rates aren't discussed often enough.
I then mapped out two scenarios, with some help from the IRD tax calculator. One for Joe Blogs (no allowances) on $50,000 getting a 4% increase. And another for Joe Blogs (no allowances) on $60,000 getting a 6% increases.
=========================
If you are in the top tax bracket you lose 40% of any increase (39% tax + 1% ACC)
So basically a 6% increase becomes a 3.8% increase (i.e., someone on $60k would net about another $2,200 a year).
Although this percentage figure assumes you're keeping all of your existing pay - which you ain't.
Someone on $60k nets about $45k (excl. any rebates, supplements). So the extra $2,200 represents a 4.9% increase in net income.
Official inflation last year was 3.2%, so you're do slightly better than that. Again, this is assuming you have no rebates, WFF entitlements, or supplements to be cut, etc.
=========================
If you are in the middle tax bracket you lose 34% of any increase (33% tax + 1% ACC)
So basically a 4% increase becomes a 2.7% increase (i.e., someone on $50k would net about another $1,350 a year).
Although this percentage figure assumes you're keeping all of your existing pay - which you ain't.
Someone on $50k nets about $38k (excl. any extra rebates, supplements). So the extra $1,350 represents a 3.5% increase in net income.
Official inflation last year was 3.2%, so you are idling in neutral. Any cuts to allowances or whatever and you Mr Blogs are in the red.
It was all prompted by this observation from Yamis:
PPTA members received a 750 dollar bonus as part of the agreement. However that was before tax of course. After tax it came out at about 480 dollars. I then called up the IRD to tell them about it and our family assistance payments are going to be cut by 17 dollars a week until the end of the tax year so in essence the 750 dollar bonus is going to wind up being about 180 dollars in my pocket. I dare not call Work and Income or else our Accommodation Supplement will get slashed and the bonus will end up costing us god damn money.
We then got to talking about how much pay increases of 4% and 6% meant for individuals in our chosen professions.
The thing is that when I get my 4% pay increase soon it will mean a couple of thousand extra, but once allowances are cut accordingly (and they will take a big hit) the actual amount that I am better off will be about 1%. And compare that to inflation ... and we will actually be worse off.
There's the kick in the gonads, folks: Pay increase - tax & ACC levy - inflation is often pretty marginal in terms of a net improvement in your financial situation. Pay increase - tax & ACC levy - inflation - cut to WFF entitlements - cut to Accommodation Supplement = sweet fuck all, and only a marginal improvement on no pay increase at all.
Or, as Yamis put it:
A 4% pay increase minus over 1% in tax equals about a 2.8% pay increase. So chances are a 4% pay increase will even mean that Joe Blogs with no allowances whatsoever is still going to be slightly worse off. And for Joe Family Assistance and Accommodation Supplement Blogs like myself you are actually clearly worse off.
People seem to welcome pay increases with enthusiasm, but things like marginal tax rates aren't discussed often enough.
I then mapped out two scenarios, with some help from the IRD tax calculator. One for Joe Blogs (no allowances) on $50,000 getting a 4% increase. And another for Joe Blogs (no allowances) on $60,000 getting a 6% increases.
=========================
If you are in the top tax bracket you lose 40% of any increase (39% tax + 1% ACC)
So basically a 6% increase becomes a 3.8% increase (i.e., someone on $60k would net about another $2,200 a year).
Although this percentage figure assumes you're keeping all of your existing pay - which you ain't.
Someone on $60k nets about $45k (excl. any rebates, supplements). So the extra $2,200 represents a 4.9% increase in net income.
Official inflation last year was 3.2%, so you're do slightly better than that. Again, this is assuming you have no rebates, WFF entitlements, or supplements to be cut, etc.
=========================
If you are in the middle tax bracket you lose 34% of any increase (33% tax + 1% ACC)
So basically a 4% increase becomes a 2.7% increase (i.e., someone on $50k would net about another $1,350 a year).
Although this percentage figure assumes you're keeping all of your existing pay - which you ain't.
Someone on $50k nets about $38k (excl. any extra rebates, supplements). So the extra $1,350 represents a 3.5% increase in net income.
Official inflation last year was 3.2%, so you are idling in neutral. Any cuts to allowances or whatever and you Mr Blogs are in the red.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Boy Racers
There's a bit of publicity at the moment for boy racers (actually there is every other week) about cracking down on them for shitty driving behaviour. Now that's fair enough but as long as the police crack down on all shitty driving (and I've seen it from all and sundry, often middle aged men and beyond) then that should be good enough.
The death and injury rates from automobile accidents is way, way the fuck lower now than it was in the 1970s. People often say that's because of better roads and safer cars. But if that was the case (which it was), why didn't people show more common sense by driving to the conditions and to the ability of their car to cope? People now are quick to talk about a lack of common sense from todays yoof, but seem to forget the fucken dumb arse shithead driving from back in the day. I should ask my dad again about all his mates killed on motorcycles in the 60s and 70s or about the mate that was decapitated while hanging out the side of a car and a passing vehicle quite literally... did what you think might have happened. Or the vehicle that plowed into the back of him killing a young girl occupant in the rear vehicle a couple of decades ago.
Also the two worst cases of driving I have seen this year were by a man who looked in his late 50s who was literally driving within a couple of metres of my bumper up a winding rural road in wet drizzly conditions as the sun was going down. The cunt had the balls to abuse the shit out of me and pull the fingers as I pulled into the driveway. This is a road I have driven up and down a few thousand times so i'd like to think I know a normal speed to drive at on it.
The other shit hosue driving was from a middle aged male bus driver on a school trip with a bus full with teens who decided he would overtake the other bus on a double yellow line on the open road and with a car coming the other way which we forced off the road. Luckily the other vehicle had enough sealed road to cross on to.
Ban all men from driving I say. And Asians too. And women are banned from roundabouts and intersections and are not allowed to parallel park. And elderly people are hereby banned from all forms of travel, bus, car, train, mobility scooter, skateboard, you name it. Dig up the roads and turn them into cricket pitches.
But the big question I want answered is.... where in fucks name do these teenagers get the money to soup their cars up to the point where they would almost need a mortgage to pay for it? Surely they aren't working?! I mean all young people are drug addict bums, with no respect, no aims in life, no conscience, no common sense and no jobs, sitting at home smoking pot, drinking booze, playing PS2, mouthing off at their mums because they drove their parents to divorce, organising parties so they can fight, throw bottles at the police, terrorise the neighbourhood, tag fences, hoon round getting hospitalised, murdering people and wasting tax payers money. On a good weekend.
PS I see Russell Brown has done a fair better job than me.
The death and injury rates from automobile accidents is way, way the fuck lower now than it was in the 1970s. People often say that's because of better roads and safer cars. But if that was the case (which it was), why didn't people show more common sense by driving to the conditions and to the ability of their car to cope? People now are quick to talk about a lack of common sense from todays yoof, but seem to forget the fucken dumb arse shithead driving from back in the day. I should ask my dad again about all his mates killed on motorcycles in the 60s and 70s or about the mate that was decapitated while hanging out the side of a car and a passing vehicle quite literally... did what you think might have happened. Or the vehicle that plowed into the back of him killing a young girl occupant in the rear vehicle a couple of decades ago.
Also the two worst cases of driving I have seen this year were by a man who looked in his late 50s who was literally driving within a couple of metres of my bumper up a winding rural road in wet drizzly conditions as the sun was going down. The cunt had the balls to abuse the shit out of me and pull the fingers as I pulled into the driveway. This is a road I have driven up and down a few thousand times so i'd like to think I know a normal speed to drive at on it.
The other shit hosue driving was from a middle aged male bus driver on a school trip with a bus full with teens who decided he would overtake the other bus on a double yellow line on the open road and with a car coming the other way which we forced off the road. Luckily the other vehicle had enough sealed road to cross on to.
Ban all men from driving I say. And Asians too. And women are banned from roundabouts and intersections and are not allowed to parallel park. And elderly people are hereby banned from all forms of travel, bus, car, train, mobility scooter, skateboard, you name it. Dig up the roads and turn them into cricket pitches.
But the big question I want answered is.... where in fucks name do these teenagers get the money to soup their cars up to the point where they would almost need a mortgage to pay for it? Surely they aren't working?! I mean all young people are drug addict bums, with no respect, no aims in life, no conscience, no common sense and no jobs, sitting at home smoking pot, drinking booze, playing PS2, mouthing off at their mums because they drove their parents to divorce, organising parties so they can fight, throw bottles at the police, terrorise the neighbourhood, tag fences, hoon round getting hospitalised, murdering people and wasting tax payers money. On a good weekend.
PS I see Russell Brown has done a fair better job than me.
Labels: boy racers, death, mayhem
