Community safety?

[No.3]

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the only figures I have read are the $208M over 4 years. You are claiming you've heard different, not me, if you have something to back up your numbers, then lets see it.

Well to be fair it's only a chuck away out of a newspaper article, but given the timeframes vs the 208mill over four years figure you're listing and the increasing price of 'everything' currently I would have to say that 1.5mill a week is a fair number. Ties in with 208 divided by the number of months equalling 1 mill a week followed by the rough guesstimate of all cost increases running at circa 25% plus the usual Govt department underestimation figure running at 25%. I think your 3.85million head of population is a little high, we are bloody near on track to lose that number to Aussie haha.

[HG Man]

Well to be fair it's only a chuck away out of a newspaper article, but given the timeframes vs the 208mill over four years figure you're listing and the increasing price of 'everything' currently I would have to say that 1.5mill a week is a fair number. Ties in with 208 divided by the number of months equalling 1 mill a week followed by the rough guesstimate of all cost increases running at circa 25% plus the usual Govt department underestimation figure running at 25%. I think your 3.85million head of population is a little high, we are bloody near on track to lose that number to Aussie haha.

So you have nothing to back up your $1.5M other than a good reckon?

3.85M is the number that the IRD has. They would know after all.

[No.3]

So you have nothing to back up your $1.5M other than a good reckon?

3.85M is the number that the IRD has. They would know after all.

Newspaper article... 3.85 is interesting, that's higher than Stats's pop figure (5199100-Mar23). I wonder if that's taxpaying entities rather than population? But even that seems light considering the number of one person outfits, but then if they are sole-trader and not individually registered I guess they aren't a separate entity. So that might be the right figure for 'entities'.

[HG Man]

Newspaper article... 3.85 is interesting, that's higher than Stats's pop figure (5199100-Mar23). I wonder if that's taxpaying entities rather than population? But even that seems light considering the number of one person outfits, but then if they are sole-trader and not individually registered I guess they aren't a separate entity. So that might be the right figure for 'entities'.

Yeah, you have to remember that children and the retired also pay tax, 75% of the population.

[No.3]

Yeah, you have to remember that children and the retired also pay tax, 75% of the population.

Yep. But Stats NZ total population figure in NZ is 5199100 (estimated) at March of this year - so the difference between 5.85m and 5.2mill isn't made up by humans. So taxpaying entities - trusts, business, other vehicles with their own IRD numbers... Doesn't make a hua of a difference to the per-person figure but in keeping with the overall tax burden per person per year - it's a lot.

[Micky Duck]

Yep. But Stats NZ total population figure in NZ is 5199100 (estimated) at March of this year - so the difference between 5.85m and 5.2mill isn't made up by humans. So taxpaying entities - trusts, business, other vehicles with their own IRD numbers... Doesn't make a hua of a difference to the per-person figure but in keeping with the overall tax burden per person per year - it's a lot.

and the unemployed are included in the figure of how many pay tax..because it looks good and makes some of them feel good
its totally cooked up croc of poohs....it isnt a tax as it doesnt even leave one bank account and go into another..it simply is less paid out in first place. take the total number of beneficiaries off the total number of "taxpayers" and the TRUE number of taxpayers is a scarey low figure.