The Hobbit Law

[Saul Rodgar]

Not quite sure which way you are arguing here, Saul. My point (which I thought was reasonably "big picure", was that NZ as a sovereign nation has its own labour laws, which are put in place (as in any democracy) by the government elected by the people of that country. And that these laws, despite "this age of global interconnectedness" should still prevail over the wishes of any corporation, even Warner Bros.

 

The way your first post on this thread was originally written was fairly vague. Should have asked you to clarify.

Best,

Edited November 8, 2010 by Saul Rodgar

[K Borowski]

And that these laws, despite "this age of global interconnectedness" should still prevail over the wishes of any corporation, even Warner Bros.

 

Laws should ESPECIALLY prevail over the wishes of a corporation, because they (with the exception of a few landed individuals) have far more power than people to pick and choose which countries in which to operate. By simply moving labor around the world, it's amazing how a corporation can bypass, say, 100 years of pollution control, living wages, and labor laws.

[Will Earl]

Sorry for resurrecting the thread, I thought I might give some NZ perspective on this. I realise some of this might be the same or similar to other countries, but I'll just lay it out so you can get an idea.

 

As an independent contractor in NZ...

 

You don't get public holidays off nor do are you entitled to any holiday or sick days, they count as unpaid leave - and you do need to get it approved by the production company if you take it during production.

 

You have to pay your own ACC (Accident and Compensation Commission, basically personal injury cover provided by the govt) which was around $600NZD annually when I last paid it (but I imagine it's gone up slightly), this was a universal rate for film/tv workers and was higher than most jobs due to health and safety aspects involved with stunts, special effects, lighting, construction, etc. People working in post production roles could classify themselves as IT workers which was a payment of around $200-$300NZD - the rates being based on number and cost of claims made the previous year. As far as accident insurance goes ACC are currently the sole and compulsory provider, however you do have the option of choosing private health insurance if you don't like public health care - which in my view does have it's problems - waiting to be seen by a doctor is often a problem, whether it's a couple of hours to see them about something urgent (last time I went to an emergency centre (which is free) there was a two hour wait, so I went to a private emergency centre and waited half an hour - around $40 I think) or waiting months for major surgery. Despite this, I do think the benefits of having a reasonably accessible healthcare system outweigh it's problems.

 

I've had to claim for ACC a few times, once for a skateboarding injury (non-work) which cracked one of the bones in my arm - which meant I couldn't lift anything. ACC paid my two-thirds of my wage for the three weeks I was off work. I've also claimed it on getting my back looked at (work related--sitting at a desk all day), where they subsidised my visits to the chiropractor and when I broke my nose surfing, ACC covered a large portion of the bills (emergency centre visit, x-rays, medication, etc).

 

You get paid hourly and you get overtime. Time and a half starts at 60 hours. Not sure what the terms are on turnaround are - they didn't have any for vfx people, but there have been a few safety incidents with tired onset crew so the govt might have forced a 10-12 hour turnaround for people working onset.

 

You have to pay GST (Goods and Service Tax) on your earnings which is set at 12.5% - this is in addition to any regular taxes you have to pay such as income tax. All products and services in NZ have GST attached and you can claim back the GST on any business related expenses you make.

 

There was a court case a few years ago BRYSON vs THREE FOOT SIX, where one of the guys working for Weta Workshop/Three Foot Six had been let go, he argued that by all definitions of the law he was an employee and unjustly let go - Three Foot Six argued his contract stated that he was an independent contractor and could be let go at any moment for no reason. I believe the High Court initially sided with Three Foot Six and said the contract defines the relationship while the supreme court reversed that decision and said that the law defines the relationship - and that you can't contract out of the law.

 

The recent change to the law is to clarify film workers as independent contractors as just that - although I haven't read the change, so I don't know what it actually entails. I'm not particularly happy that the law change was put up on the table by either the govt or the studio (I don't know which party asked for or offered it). It's also a bit embarrassing to see the country bend over for a studio like that, as I personally don't think the actors boycott had any influence on the outcome of whether the film was shot in NZ or not - this was purely a business move by the studio to get a better deal out of a country who was overly keen to have their name associated with the film.

[Guest]

You have to pay GST (Goods and Service Tax) on your earnings which is set at 12.5% - this is in addition to any regular taxes you have to pay such as income tax. All products and services in NZ have GST attached and you can claim back the GST on any business related expenses you make.

 

Well you mean you have to charge your client GST on your invoices, collect the money, and pass it on to the feds? So a $100.00 invoice will be billed to the client at $112.50, you'll collect the $12.50 and forward this onto the gov't, correct? So it's not you that is paying the GST it's the client. Then any GST you've paid will be counted as an input tax credit and off-set any GST you need to forward.

 

It's also a bit embarrassing to see the country bend over for a studio like that, as I personally don't think the actors boycott had any influence on the outcome of whether the film was shot in NZ or not - this was purely a business move by the studio to get a better deal out of a country who was overly keen to have their name associated with the film.

 

That was a bit strange especially considering how long NZ has refused to allow the US navy to dock its ships there unless the US revealed if they had nuclear weapons onboard. I guess you need David Lange back, he never would have caved to a Hollywood studio :)

 

R,

[Mark Dunn]

Well you mean you have to charge your client GST on your invoices, collect the money, and pass it on to the feds? So a $100.00 invoice will be billed to the client at $112.50, you'll collect the $12.50 and forward this onto the gov't, correct? So it's not you that is paying the GST it's the client. Then any GST you've paid will be counted as an input tax credit and off-set any GST you need to forward.

 

 

R,

That's right. We call it value added tax and ours is now 20%. If you turn over more than about £70,000 you have to register for it, then add it to your invoices, then pay over the difference between what you charge and what you pay on your own purchases. So yes, the client does pay it, but you collect it from him, and if he's a business, he deducts what he pays you from his own liability. The consumer, at the end of the food chain, pays it and can't reclaim it, of course. That would be the ticket buyer at the cinema.

[Brian Dzyak]

Laws should ESPECIALLY prevail over the wishes of a corporation, because they (with the exception of a few landed individuals) have far more power than people to pick and choose which countries in which to operate. By simply moving labor around the world, it's amazing how a corporation can bypass, say, 100 years of pollution control, living wages, and labor laws.

 

 

But that's what the Reagan Revolution brought the world. Even now (yesterday in fact), American Republican Darryl Issa sent letters to Corporations asking them to send lists of the regulations that they feel impedes their ability to make a profit. Duh! All of them?! It's important that everyone remember to point out that this is a wholly CONservative conceit, putting profit for a few over all else. It has been the deregulatory environment brought on by CONservatives which caused disasters like ENRON, the BP Oil spill, and the recent Wall Street meltdown.

[Will Earl]

Well you mean you have to charge your client GST on your invoices, collect the money, and pass it on to the feds? So a $100.00 invoice will be billed to the client at $112.50, you'll collect the $12.50 and forward this onto the gov't, correct? So it's not you that is paying the GST it's the client. Then any GST you've paid will be counted as an input tax credit and off-set any GST you need to forward.

 

Correct.

 

That was a bit strange especially considering how long NZ has refused to allow the US navy to dock its ships there unless the US revealed if they had nuclear weapons onboard. I guess you need David Lange back, he never would have caved to a Hollywood studio :)

 

Yeah that policy is still a major point of contention for the US government.

[jacob thomas]

Correct.

 

 

 

Yeah that policy is still a major point of contention for the US government.

 

Just to clarify a couple of things from Will Earl's post GST is 15% here now. And yes it works exactly like Richard Boddington suggests.

 

ACC (a no fault kind of public health insurance) is tied to your annual earnings and your industry. I have been paying significantly more annually than Will's guestimates.

 

We work here 10 hour days on commercials before overtime but usually on drama's it 10 and 3/4 days (allowing 3/4 hour unpaid lunch).

 

The industry guidelines are for 10 hours turnaround.

 

The recent change to the law is to clarify film workers as independent contractors as just that - although I haven't read the change, so I don't know what it actually entails. I'm not particularly happy that the law change was put up on the table by either the govt or the studio (I don't know which party asked for or offered it). It's also a bit embarrassing to see the country bend over for a studio like that, as I personally don't think the actors boycott had any influence on the outcome of whether the film was shot in NZ or not - this was purely a business move by the studio to get a better deal out of a country who was overly keen to have their name associated with the film.

 

I couldn't agree more.

[Will Earl]

Thanks Jacob, I didn't realise they raised GST. I figured ACC would have gone up as well in the last three years (the cost of everything had gone up quite a bit when I went home recently, when I left petrol was around $1.20).

 

We worked 10 hours days with half hour or an hour paid break - depending on your contract.

[Chris Millar]

Thanks Jacob, I didn't realise they raised GST.

:o :blink:

 

well, I hope it means you're too busy at work to know ;)

[Guest]

Yeah that policy is still a major point of contention for the US government.

 

Three cheers for plucky NZ, the Canadian gov't could not come up with that amount of guts in a thousand years!

 

Canadian politicians ask the US gov't for permission to use the rest room.

 

R,

[Will Earl]

well, I hope it means you're too busy at work to know ;)

 

:) I've been working in the UK the last few years.

[Guest]

All this talk about a GST or VAT must be quite baffling to Americans. It's a way of life for Canada, Europe, AUZ, and NZ. In the USA they just say well we print the world's reserve currency so why should be bother collecting taxes? Now 50% of Americans pay zero federal income tax, and the US debt is 14 trillion. In spite of all that the USA still refuses any form of GST or VAT. The day will come when it's forced on the USA and they won't have a choice.

 

R,

[Mark Dunn]

There's state sales tax, of course, with a far wider scope than VAT. Nothing federal, though.

[Brian Dzyak]

All this talk about a GST or VAT must be quite baffling to Americans. It's a way of life for Canada, Europe, AUZ, and NZ. In the USA they just say well we print the world's reserve currency so why should be bother collecting taxes? Now 50% of Americans pay zero federal income tax, and the US debt is 14 trillion. In spite of all that the USA still refuses any form of GST or VAT. The day will come when it's forced on the USA and they won't have a choice.

 

R,

 

 

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. On one side, we have the very poor and those living below the poverty line, so they are exempt, I believe. On the other side, our Republican Party represents the wealthy and Corporations, so more often than not, those people are taxed at lower rates than the people they employee in addition to the other deductions allowed (plus money they hide or shelter in one way or another).

 

That leaves the burden on the Middle Class who A) doesn't have a lot of income and B ) can't make a lot of deductions or hide their money.

 

Yet, the USA has enormous financial overhead, most of it our defense bill and debt. Of course, we COULD get out of debt and operate in the black if we went back to pre-Reagan tax rates, but as you've pointed out, our CONservative administrations for the past thirty years would rather watch this nation burn to the ground before they allowed the wealthy and Corporations get taxed properly.

 

One of the problems with a VAT and the like is that it is essentially only taxing consumption and we already have a sales tax for that. The issue there is that the wealthiest 2% which controls something like 75% of the wealth spends less of its income on consumption. In other words, most of that cash is tied up in banks or hoarded in other ways so that it is NOT circulating in the economy. Middle Class and poor people tend to spend the majority of their income because they have to. So, if we dumped the income tax and only used a consumption tax, the rich would still be allowed to hoard the majority of the capital but would just have to jump through less hoops to accomplish it.

 

What we really need is a WEALTH TAX, not income nor consumption. Like it or not, for an economy to function properly, money cannot be permitted to be locked away out of circulation. So, money HAS TO BE distributed/redistributed in measured way constantly or else we wind up with the kind of mess like the first Republican Great Depression and this current Republican Recession. The simple fact that nobody wants to talk about is that we just can't allow so few people control the majority of the wealth or else we wind up with problems as we're experiencing right now. Everybody knows it, even the CONservatives, but everyone is afraid to talk about it because thirty years of propaganda promoting Milton Friedman's Unfettered Free Market Capitalism ideology has everyone either too stupid to understand reality or too rich to tell the truth out loud.

 

So, a VAT in the USA? Maybe someday, but it won't do much to solve the underlying fundamental problem. :(

[Guest]

What we really need is a WEALTH TAX,

 

When Eisenhower was in office the tax rate on millionaires was 92%! That fact shocks a lot of Americans today.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

When Eisenhower was in office the tax rate on millionaires was 92%! That fact shocks a lot of Americans today.

 

R,

 

I'd have to go dig up the actual breakdown, but that rate was only applicable after the first $3 million in income. All income BEFORE $3 million was taxed at far lower rates. I'm not sure (at this time, I'll try to find out) why they chose that number, but the reasoning probably was two-fold. One, was reasonable people all knew that nobody really NEEDS that much money to live with and allowing so much to go without getting taxed at 92% still left plenty of money for luxury items, particularly in the Eisenhower days.

 

The other, likely more important, reason is that realistic people understand the inherent danger that such concentrated wealth can have on an economy and a democracy. Allowing just a few people (in the USA, it is currently about 2% of the population controlling around 3/4 or more of the wealth) to hoard so much money means that that currency is NOT circulating in the economy as it needs to be AND such a situation opens up the dangerous door of a government being bought by those VERY rich people. That is precisely what has happened since the Reagan tax cuts all but gutted our functional economy and democracy. Income disparity is at an all time high and our government has been taken over by Corporate lobbyists and it all started when the Reagan Administration stopped taxing the wealthy properly.

 

What was it that wealthy German said not too long ago? When asked if he minded being taxed so much, he responded, "I don't want to be a rich man in a poor country." If only we had a world full of people like that, the world would be a much much better place for everyone, not just the uberrich. :(

[Guest]

"I don't want to be a rich man in a poor country." If only we had a world full of people like that, the world would be a much much better place for everyone, not just the uberrich. :(

 

Brian, why don't you move to Canada and pay 60% of your income in taxes? That would show us all that you actually believe all of this stuff you write. Right now you're an individual that lives in a very low tax nation compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Brian, why don't you move to Canada and pay 60% of your income in taxes? That would show us all that you actually believe all of this stuff you write. Right now you're an individual that lives in a very low tax nation compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

 

R,

 

 

The difference is that while we may not pay as high of taxes, that is made up by what we have to pay for-profit companies for. For instance, my family's health insurance, through my wife's work health plan, costs in the neighborhood of $1,600.00 a month. That is NOT a typo. And no, we have not been able to get our own insurance policy as the last two times we tried, we were denied because the insurance companies denied us due to "pre-existing conditions." Mind you, those were completely manufactured but there has been no way to challenge insurance companies. Until now, of course with the new health-insurance reforms that were signed into law...the one's that Republicans want so desperately to repeal. The current law prohibits insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions (as they decide them, that is), but they are still allowed to jack rates up for "higher risk" customers.

 

So, we pay one way or the other. If we HAD a single-payer system (government insurance, basically), then maybe our taxes would go up some, but with everyone paying into it, the collective costs would go DOWN across the board for everyone. So instead of having to spend $1,600 a month for health insurance, maybe we'd pay an extra few hundred in taxes every year which is still a net savings ... which would enable people like me in the Middle Class to spend more on other things which would stimulate the economy on a regular basis.

 

But Republicans hate this idea mainly because if I am saving money, it means that somebody is losing profit somewhere. And those potential losers have so much money that they've successfully bought off our elected officials to keep medical care out of the hands of the government. Profit is all that matters to these people, not the overall economy or common-sense.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Brian Dzyak

[Guest]

Well of course I agree 100% that the US healthcare system is a total disaster and that Canada's system is vastly superior. No question about that.

 

The problem is that in Canada we basically accept ridiculously high tax rates to fund it all. Many Americans may think a single payer healthcare system like ours is a great idea, until they have to pay the higher taxes, then it won't be such a great idea to many.

 

Americans have yet to adopt a "pay as we go" attitude. Right now the philosophy is to print more money and borrow more from the Chinese. How long that can go on for is anybody's guess.

 

BTW the only provision of the new US healthcare legislation that makes any sense is the law preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to people as a result of pre-existing conditions. That's the good part. The rest will be a complete mess and still leave a ridiculous patch work across America of those with insurance and those without.

 

R,

[Chris Millar]

Here we go...

 

:rolleyes: