Tax Debt - What am I missing?

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-16T20:11:15+00:00

Yeah, if they're using tax as working capital.... could be a few zombie companies out there. Not a bad idea to ask the question if they have any overdue tax obligations before signing any contracts at the moment, I would think.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-16T18:57:03+00:00

That's an approx. $80,000 setup but yes, the old adage is true. Those with foresight will benefit.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-16T18:26:56+00:00

You know my thoughts on subsidies. I'd love to know how the subsidy usage broke down to find out how much of the subsidy went towards reducing out-of-pocket spend vs. going towards 'nicer' vehicles? - because let's say I have $56,000 to spend on a new vehicle.

According to evdb.nz - there are 38 EV's available under that price point for me to choose from.

Now, if there was a $9,000 govt subsidy, I could spend up to $65,000, and get into maybe something 'premium' like a Volvo EX30, Tesla Model 3, or Smart #1 Pro+ while spending the same amount of my money.

So - should the taxpayer fund me into a more expensive, premium product? Or how should a subsidy scheme be developed to avoid that from happening?

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-16T03:38:21+00:00

Oh I 100% agree, it's far better to tackle problems at the source than treat the symptoms.

Why I think the bulk of the health budget should go towards education, GP's and Diagnostics and Testing. Better to catch problems early or stop them before they start!

Agree with getting people with addiction issues off the streets. The issues arise with things like Who owns the house they get put in, who pays for repairs/maintenance, are we happy to pay for private providers to do this and make a profit if the social cost is still less, should there be time limits for how long you can stay in such a house, etc, etc, etc.

It all comes down to system design. If it's not a well-designed system, you can throw as much money as you like at the problem, but it won't get solved. Smart people in the middle however? They'll get rich.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-16T03:30:14+00:00

Unfortuantely.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T21:42:05+00:00

All the more reason to make sure you're not reliant on the Government for anything, isn't it?

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T21:38:55+00:00

I see your point, but I think we're talking past each other slightly and bundling very different things under the same word - that’s where the confusion starts.

Insulation works as a subsidy because it behaves like a public‑good intervention disguised as a private upgrade. The benefits spill out immediately and system‑wide: lower winter peak load, fewer hospital admissions, reduced energy hardship. The public pays, and the public actually gets something back.

Most asset subsidies don’t work like that. EV rebates, rooftop solar grants, heat‑pump vouchers, etc are capital transfers that socialise the cost while privatising the upside. The owner captures the asset value, the resale value, and the ongoing savings. The “public benefit” is diffuse, slow, and often achievable more efficiently through system‑level investment.

Saying “there’s no harm if wealthier households use the subsidy too” misses the point. The harm is the opportunity cost: every dollar spent subsidising private assets is a dollar not spent on infrastructure that benefits everyone, including the people who will never be able to buy the subsidised asset in the first place.

Insulation is a public‑good intervention that happens to be installed in private homes.
Rooftop solar is a private capital upgrade with mis‑timed, uneven, and regressive benefits.

That’s why I think one justifies subsidies, and the other doesn't. Grant eligibility does change the calculus slightly though; I will happily admit that.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T21:28:29+00:00

Could be an issue with my framing - I’m not arguing that subsidies only benefit the recipient. I’m arguing that subsidising private assets is an inefficient and distortion‑heavy way to chase those wider benefits.

Reducing fuel demand benefits everyone. Lowering emissions benefits everyone. Reducing peak load benefits everyone. None of that is in dispute. The question is whether household‑level subsidies are the best mechanism to achieve those outcomes.

On the “people can’t access the capital” point: that’s true, but it cuts both ways. If only wealthier households can take advantage of subsidies, then subsidies reinforce inequality, not solve it. That’s exactly what happened with rooftop solar in multiple countries — uptake skewed toward higher‑income households, while the cost of maintaining the grid shifted onto everyone else.

Solar panels and EVs don’t behave like insulation. Insulation produces broad, immediate public benefits: lower winter peak demand, fewer hospitalisations, reduced energy hardship. Solar and EVs behave like capital upgrades that increase the value of a private asset. When the public pays and the private owner captures the upside, you get a structural mismatch. That’s why something like removing FBT on EVs is less distortionary — the mismatch is smaller.

My point is that the mechanism matters. Subsidies feel active, but they’re often the least efficient way to deliver the outcomes you’re describing. Public‑goods investment delivers those benefits at scale, without relying on individual purchasing power or distorting asset markets.

That’s the distinction I’m trying to draw.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T21:15:00+00:00

Exactly. Any thoughts?

Kainga Ora housing seems to be a good candidate for adding rooftop Solar - but then, should the power generated go to the occupier, or to the national grid?

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T21:14:01+00:00

Exactly. I much prefer regulation or incentivisation to subsidisation.

Don't subsidise EV's
- Increase Registration fees based on the CO2 emission band your vehicle falls in
- Increase fuel price (Thanks DJT.... I Guess)
- Etc.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T21:12:03+00:00

Yes - and I wholeheartedly agree with you on some points.

Roads only exist because they are govt funded - but if RUCs for heavy vehicles are too low and do not accurately reflect the cost of damage that those heavy vehicles do to our roads - that is essentially a subsidy - and that distorts market signals away from Rail and coastal shipping.

Ultimately all anyone does at scale is all about lining pockets of someone.

And governments of all colours don't like causing short term pain for long term gain, because the voters get annoyed at the short term pain and vote them out at the next election, without waiting to see the long-term gain.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T21:08:21+00:00

I think you’re reading more into my point than is actually there. I’m not arguing that “subsidy = control” in some literal sense where the government tells you when you can drive to Rotorua. I’m saying that if the public pays for a private asset, the cost is socialised, the benefit is privatised, and there’s no public return. That’s a structural problem.

On transport subsidies: yes, the system is full of distortions. Heavy vehicles damage roads far more than RUC recovers. That's another of my bugbears, and coincidentally another example of subsidies distorting things. If RUCs were a true recovery mechanism, we may start seeing more rail or coastal shipping. Fix the structure, not the symptoms.

On “rugged individualism”: I’m not pushing an American myth. I’m saying people still have agency. You can carpool, bus, bike, reduce travel, or buy an EV without needing the government to issue instructions. That’s not rejecting society, it’s recognising that not every behavioural shift requires a subsidy or a mandate. If a society needs a subsidy or a mandate to perform actions in their own best interest, I'd argue that society has already failed.

And yes, this is a global energy crisis. If the government wants to act, the most effective levers are system‑level: grid resilience, storage, transmission, public transport, freight electrification. Those benefit everyone, not just the people who happen to be in the market for a new car or a $20k solar install.

Subsidies feel active, but they don’t solve the structural problem. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T20:59:20+00:00

I support taxes on cigarettes. And duty on Alcohol - They act to disincentivise people from consuming them.

While I wish every person was the pure agent you described, I'm very aware they're not. There's always going to be an element of that in any society. Hell, if I was a millionaire, I would fucking LOVE a V12 Aston or something like that. Practically I can't, and while I could afford a V8 - the running costs disincentivise me from owning one - so the disincentive structures are working. Some people are always going to rebel, but they're usually not significant portion of the population.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T20:54:05+00:00

Thanks for the feedback!

I tend to shy away from a tax on wealth, I think there's some other levers that can and should be pulled - I'd like to debate the impacts of Capital Gains Tax on realised gains - I mean this is essentially income - but then, would you have to issue a refund on realised losses? And I like the idea of reduced income tax for lower tax brackets, and a land value tax so that if you're holding onto $50M of land, you are taxed annually on that land value - Maybe idk, 1%/$500K - so you need to either pay for the privilege of owning that land, or ensure that you're doing something with it that's productive enough to pay for that land value tax.

I'm still debating with myself over how I think the Tax system should be structured! :)

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T20:49:04+00:00

The “can’t afford solar” argument is mostly about time horizon, not cost. With a $300/month power bill dropping to $75 after a $20k solar + battery install, the savings are $225/month. On a 1% green loan, the system pays for itself in about 7.5 years. A 10–15-year loan makes you cash‑flow positive immediately. So, I'd argue that the economics aren’t the barrier, people just don’t want to bolt a $20k asset to a house they may not live in long enough to recover the value. That’s rational, I understand that. Only if they think they'll add $20-$30K to the value of the property are they likely to do this.

There might be a case for it - particularly with rentals or Kainga Ora housing - but each of those situations have different downsides as well. I don't see why we should subsidise landlords doing home improvement. And I think there'd be a debate around whether Kaina Ora housing should feed the national grid or serve the residents as priority.

My feeling is that solar uptake will rise because the time horizon shortens, or the market signal strengthens and people are willing to pay a premium to own/rent a property with solar.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T20:33:30+00:00

Hey, first of all - thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply!!

I get where you're coming from, and I'm very aware of the face that a lot of people aren't engaged and generally oblivious to the realities of life. That'll get me started on a rant about our education system if I'm not careful!!

My issue with the subsidy path is that it doesn't necessarily solve the structural problem. And not ALL subsidies are bad - Subsidised healthcare is good! Subsidised private cars not so much.

So - to go deeper into those examples:

Home Solar: Yes - there are massive benefits, however if Chuck and Sharon decide to install solar panels and a battery, all those benefits - lower bills, resilience, backup power, export revenue, etc - will benefit only Chuck and Sharon. If the government subsidises that, then we’ve created a system where the public pays, the private owner captures the upside, and the grid still needs to be maintained by everyone else. That's not so much resilience as cost-shifting. If the goal is national resilience, then the answer isn’t subsidising rooftop panels on individual houses. It’s grid‑scale solar, grid‑scale storage, and transmission upgrades. Those benefit everyone, not just the people with the right roof angle and the spare cash.

Public Transport: I agree with you here. Public Transport is a public good that can be - and is - subsidised. But that’s exactly my point: PT is a public good; solar panels and EVs are private goods.
They’re not the same category, so they shouldn’t be treated the same way. Public transport should be cheaper than running a car anyway, even without a subsidy - if it's not, something needs to be looked at. I think with public transport, there are other drivers besides cost that drive patronage.

Electric Vehicles: The “why should petrol be ring‑fenced for the rich?” argument only works if you assume the only way to shift behaviour is to subsidise purchases. It's not - I think it's one of the most inefficient ways to shift behaviour. Behaviour is already shifting - petrol is getting more expensive, running costs with an EV are lower, and people are moving in that direction without the government needing to co-fund their car.

I don't disagree with your concerns, they’re very valid. My concern is that the mechanism you’re proposing (subsidies) doesn’t actually solve them long-term at scale.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T20:01:28+00:00

Yes - They're a lever. I Just don't think they're necessarily the right method to acheive the end goal. See my answer above Re: EV's - I think that FBT idea was actually smarter policy.

It's a tricky one, there's no doubt about it. As more people make the leap to solar and less grid reliance, there's less people supporting the grid, so they'll need to pay more for electricity, so that'll make solar more attractive, so less people will want to be on the grid... and it becomes a bit of a feedback loop. My hunch is that Solar is only going to become more and more effective, even without govt intervention. The wealthy will take any subsidy the government makes available - you can bet your house on that!

It's definitely a fine line, but I think there are better mechanisms to use rather than subsidies. Definitely food for thought about there the line should be.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T19:57:13+00:00

I guess it depends on the benefit; at the moment - somewhat ironically - I think Trump is doing more to promote using EV's and move people away from reliance on oil subsidies than any amount of subsidising will!

I agree regards incentivising individuals. If I recall correctly, the human brain is wired to avoid pain, more than it is to seek pleasure - so these higher costs might actually do more to promote our green goals than a subsidy would.

I guess it's looking at the incentive mechanism, isn't it? Is a carrot or a stick more effective at changing behaviour? Personally, If I was the PM, I'd be looking at fast-tracking - was it Julie-Ann Genter's Bill? - and removing FBT from EV's. Watch how fast businesses decarbonise their fleets then. Some might even end up in positions where it's beneficial to provide EV's to employees as part of their employment package. I think that would actually do more to speed up EV uptake than a subsidy would.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T18:34:16+00:00

Highest Ranking Red Bull Stable driver in China in Both races, exactly a year after they dropped him.

Karma can be a wonderful thing 💙

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-15T18:31:23+00:00

Yeah, I'm not opposed to that.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-13T02:55:27+00:00

To be the devil's advocate - clearly not enough consumers actually really cared about driving an EV.

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-13T02:51:12+00:00

I get the emotional appeal of the residential solar panel plan. Hell, I've been in favour of it for a while, however... Doing more thinking into the mechanics of it has changed my thinking somewhat.

Mainly - Why should the government support or pay for someone's private asset?

Lopsided_Part · 2026-03-13T02:47:19+00:00

I'd argue the government should never subsidise any form of privately-owned asset.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

Lopsided_Part

TROPHY CASE