Seen National's Tax Policy!?

[Flyingpony]

"National leader Don Brash said the low tax rate of 15 cents in the dollar would move from $9000 to $12,500 and there would be a 19 cent tax rate between $12,500 and $50,000.
Income between $50,000 and $100,000 would be taxed at 33 cents in the dollar and the top rate of 39 cents would kick in after that. "

Wow. That is a nice step in the right direction.
At least everybody will get some pie.
Labour's idea means only some selected people will get some pie and the rest of us will suffer being no better off.
Do wonder what the side impact of National's idea is?

Link here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/print/0,1478,3385638a10,00.html)

[Str8 Jacket]

Yeah, definately seems like they are trying to look after everyone. The one thing I did like was the fact thaat they are proposing tax cuts for working families, should definately be a good incentive. Be interesting to see which party gets in and if they actually do make these proposed changes though . . .

[Lias]

I was planning to vote National before this, just an extra incentive really. I dont agree with all of Nationals policies by any means, but Labour has got to go.

[TonyB]

Just checked out Labours carrot (http://www.labour.org.nz/Docs/ttr-calc/ttr-calc.htm).
It's official- my wife and I would be better off seperating and taking one kid each. We get nothing if we're together, but about $100 a week each if we split up. If we had another kid we'd only get about $45 a week between us.
So once again a govt policy that discourages 2 parent families will probably go ahead :oi-grr:

My biggest gripe with the money that Labour have "found" is that they clearly knew they had it all along. They've "discovered" it so they can use it as an election bribe. While they've been sitting on this money, how many people suffered or even died waiting for surgery? How many people suffered because there aren't enough cops on the beat? How much money did the economy loose due to poor roading? And why did we need the extra tax on our petrol?

[Suney]

Can someone tell me about labours tax policy and how it compares to nationals.

[vifferman]

My biggest gripe with the money that Labour have "found" is that they clearly knew they had it all along. They've "discovered" it so they can use it as an election bribe. While they've been sitting on this money, how many people suffered or even died waiting for surgery? How many people suffered because there aren't enough cops on the beat? How much money did the economy loose due to poor roading? And why did we need the extra tax on our petrol?
Indeed.
I've been a Labour supporter for years, but I'm pissed off with them for this, and I'm also not at all happy the way the proposed tax cut will be applied. I know they're a slightly left of central gubmint, and favour socialist policies, but this is dumb.

But having said that, I have no faith in any of the parties, and would really like to be able to vote "No confidence" to tell them all theyr'e a pack of self-serving, jumped-up eejits, who care more about themselves than the good of the country. We don't need more laws, more gubmint, more taxation - we need some commonsense, a return to personal accountability/responsibility and decent values, and less emphasis on Keynesian-based economic policies.

[kerryg]

We don't need more laws, more gubmint, more taxation - we need some commonsense, a return to personal accountability/responsibility and decent values, and less emphasis on Keynesian-based economic policies.


I want to vote for THAT party.. :spudflip:

[Flyingpony]

Can someone tell me about labours tax policy and how it compares to nationals.
I'd like to see a chart comparing each party against another on some common points, along with any respective pro/cons of their idea.

At the moment, I've no idea who stands for what. Don't watch TV, listen to radio or buy papers and snail mail quickly ends up in the paper recycle bag because lack of in-depth detail. Where's that chart, that's what we need.

In terms of which party I'm going to vote for: no idea. Don't like supporting parties who then don't come true with their word or who's election promise won't kick in till several years time.
Voted Green's when they first came out because of their anti-GE stance. So much good they were for standing up. We've still got GE food products on our shelves and still hear in the news about GE contamination of seeds.

[mikey]

what would hitler say

[Lou Girardin]

I won't be voting Labour because they've maintained monetarist policy while fiddling around the edges with social experiments.
And I won't be voting National because I don't like ACT.
Winnie baby are you there?

[Quasievil]

what would hitler say

About what and who cares ? not to mention hes rightly dead so very little I think

[Deano]

Just checked out Labours carrot (http://www.labour.org.nz/Docs/ttr-calc/ttr-calc.htm).
It's official- my wife and I would be better off seperating and taking one kid each. We get nothing if we're together, but about $100 a week each if we split up. If we had another kid we'd only get about $45 a week between us.
So once again a govt policy that discourages 2 parent families will probably go ahead


How many families do you know of where the father lives "round the corner" or "up the road" in order to benefit from this - not a good policy at all is it ?



My biggest gripe with the money that Labour have "found" is that they clearly knew they had it all along. They've "discovered" it so they can use it as an election bribe.

The 'honourable' ??? Dr Michael Cullen said there was no slush fund of money sitting in the govt coffers. Lying b@#$&%. Nothing like throwing some dosh around to buy votes.

[TonyB]

How many families do you know of where the father lives "round the corner" or "up the road" in order to benefit from this - not a good policy at all is it ?. Well personally I don't know of any- yet. If they get in again I'd be willing to bet we'll all know more than one.

I had another go on Labours calculator.
Like I said- if we seperated and took 1 kid each, we'd get about $100 a week each. If we seperated and one of us kept both kids they'd only get around $150. :scratch:
If we stayed together, to get an extra $200 a week, we'd have to have between 5 and 6 kids... this policy is a liiiiiitle strange :scratch: :scratch: :scratch: :scratch: :scratch:


The 'honourable' ??? Dr Michael Cullen said there was no slush fund of money sitting in the govt coffers. Lying b@#$&%. Nothing like throwing some dosh around to buy votes. Yep, and your (insert ageing relative here) is probably on a massive waiting list for vital surgery because there is 'no money'. Bullocks! :oi-grr:

[MrMelon]

Sounds like National should score a few more votes with this one.

There's a pretty good website here which compares the parties policies on various issues. http://www.nzvotes.org/

Did anyone see that program on 3 last night called "The Pretender"? It followed a national candidate around for a day around the Wakatipu South electorate. It was hillarious! It felt like I was watching the office at times.
Here's what the tv3 site has about it.



The Pretender
10:25 PM SUNDAY

Where is the real battle in Election 2005? 3 has found it in the deep south of New Zealand – where two candidates are locked in a ding-dong battle for power. See their struggle when The Pretender premieres on Sunday, August 21st at 10:30pm on 3.

The two candidates have been followed for the past month by Otago film maker Cassie Young, who originally started making the documentary for Otago Regional Television.

Now 3 has scooped up the rights – this material is extraordinary, insightful, sad, and bizarre.

“It is must-see-TV if you want to see a real election battle,” network executives says. “We have never seen two candidates so hell-bent on consuming each other. As soon as we saw the material – we knew it had to go on national television.

“We couldn’t believe the material Cassie Young was shooting,” the executives continue. “She’s found a cracking little story in the south. The two candidates are very funny – without realising it. She has got in very close to the yarn – a true skill – and peeled the skin off some very thick skinned people.”

Otago Regional Television has released the documentary for national broadcast because the station felt it deserved a wider audience.

OTR Managing Director, Greg Brown, says the two politicians have been brave in allowing such access, but refuses to give the game away until broadcast.

“It is the classic political battle: right versus left; man versus woman; money versus common sense.

“We have all promised Cassie that we won’t spoil her story until it gets to air. So everyone here is tight lipped. But we encourage everyone to take a look.”

Cassie Young – the student documentary maker – says she decided to call the programme The Pretender – a nickname she has given one of the candidates.

“One candidate sits out there on the right, but really the stars are the politicians who have allowed me into their hearts and their homes. This is their story.”

Young has been surprised at the depth of interest in the seat.

“Helen Clark appears in the first episode – and is really behind her candidate. It is amazing who has come through the town. It illustrates just how tight this seat is. Murray McCully, Bill English and Rodney Hyde all appear in the documentary backing this man.”

Young says media commentators, including Matt McCarten, say the seat is so close it could be won on a handful of votes. And this, she says, has led to a fascinating and sometimes nasty battle.

[Motu]

National with policies to woo the working man? How low have they come? Brash is less trustworthy than Winstone,he needs to be kept away from power.Another year of protest votes for me,just like the good old days.

Actualy I may not be able to vote.I got my papers in the mail some months back,signed and sent off....but they came back saying I hadn't lived at that address long enough,then another one came saying I'd been there long enough...so signed and sent off - but...you are too late and I'm not on the roll.Well,tuffuckingluck I say.

[bane]

well step in the right direction anyways.
Be nice to be able to decide what to do with my money, rather than govt telling me what "my" priorities are!

Actually we can probably thank Labour for the way National has set up this policy - with lower to middle income people getting reasonable benefit... Im sure Dr Brash wanted to introduce a flat tax rate to finish what Roger Douglas started.

[Grizz]

Never thought I would ever vote for the Nat's either but I agree with LiasTZ Labour has to go IMO.

I am sick of this mollycuddling PC government, and while the Nats may not be any better (proof has to be in the eating) I want to give them the opportunity. If they reneg on their promises or fail to deliver we probably will pack up and head off to Oz (we have been back two years after spending 5 years over in Brisvegas).

Our family is definetly better off with the tax cuts from National.

Here is the link to the tax calculator.

http://www.taxcuts.co.nz/

[Dafe]

I won't be voting Labour because they've maintained monetarist policy while fiddling around the edges with social experiments.
And I won't be voting National because I don't like ACT.
Winnie baby are you there?
If you like Winnie you should vote National over Labour. Because Winnie hates Helen Clarks guts and winnie is a true National supportive man through and through.

Don't forget, Winnie and John Banks were both understudies to Robert Muldoon and his National government.

I just wish John Banks was running for prime minister. Because he would clean up this country like no other man or woman could. Although, winnie wouldn't be far behind.

[bane]

I just wish John Banks was running for prime minister.

Oh god! please save us from Bank-isms such as "a kiwi battler from struggle street"....

[Coyote]

Don't be fooled by National.

Yay, less Taxes! Less money for the government to put into running the country! And all your money you'll be saving from the tax decrease will be going into the private sector anyway, such as power and hopefully healthcare and education if National finally sell them off to the Richie Richs! Yay!

Anyone watch Don Brash this morning on Breakfast? Notice he only said he'll be helping "hard working New Zealanders" (wish I counted how many times he said that). Sure, might get those slackarses off the dole and working for once in their lives, but those who can't work will have to starve I'm afraid, the government won't be paying for your bread, butter and gruel.

And also, who read that article on Finland in the Dominion Post this morning? High taxes is a good thing as it benefits the country

[TwoSeven]

Well under nat I get an extra $6-8/wk as a student (that makes a big diff as well). And when I return to work I get an extra $2.5k/year.

One important thing is that I work out what I ask for wages based on what I want in the hand after tax. So for me I can ask for less pay, which helps the company I work for - also that $2.5 for the employer works out at about an $5k savings in compliance costs - might not sound like much, but if you have 40 employees it does.

I havnt factored in having two jobs tho. I like the 19% witholding tax :)

So I dont care if they dont fix the roads. The extra $2.5k pays for my bike being fixed :)

[MacD]

I havnt factored in having two jobs tho. I like the 19% witholding tax :)


You won't like it at the end of the year when you realise that your second job has put your overall earnings into a higher tax bracket and you have a lump sum tax demand to pay.

And while we're on the matter, why do people forget that the incremental tax rates only apply on the income you earn over a certain threshold? If your total income puts you into say the 33c/$ rate, you are still only paying 19.5c/$ on the first $38K. People always talk about it as though they are paying the 33c/$ on the whole lot?

[Qkchk]

I was planning to vote National before this, just an extra incentive really. I dont agree with all of Nationals policies by any means, but Labour has got to go.

Ditto. They may not be the best but they are all we really got..... the other parties are too small to make your vote count.

[MadDuck]

Ok I expect to get an arse kick for this one...

But why should my tax money go to support people who choose to have children? You choose to have a family you should be able to pay for it. I dont object to paying taxes but......

I would rather see tax funds go to the students and health for elderly. Somone I know (works and pays tax) just had a mild heart attack and without medical cover has to wait 9 months for full tests or find $3,000.. Anyone see anything wrong with that picture?

[bane]

who read that article on Finland in the Dominion Post this morning? High taxes is a good thing as it benefits the country

hmmn... a country that has over double the unemployment rate of our own. Obviously more incentive to enjoy the welfare system, than work... why bother earning if the bulk heads back to the state for "redirection".

[Grumpy]

My biggest gripe with the money that Labour have "found" is that they clearly knew they had it all along. They've "discovered" it so they can use it as an election bribe.

Isn't that what National are trying to do with their promise of tax cuts? I'm told that I will eventually get around $30 more in my pocket a week with these tax cuts ( before tax ) but I find myself asking is Don Brash the sort of person that I want running the country? Is that $30 a week worth it? Nothing that he has done or said to this point fills me with any confidence.

[TwoSeven]

So you are saying you dont trust the person that ran the RB for so many years ?

Who would you trust then :)

[cowpoos]

Voted Green's when they first came out because of their anti-GE stance. So much good they were for standing up. We've still got GE food products on our shelves and still hear in the news about GE contamination of seeds.

Get the fuck over it....GE is harmless....and for christ sake the technology of GE and stem cell transplants can save millions of people suffering needless illnesses...dieseases...

Do you know anyone thats got or died of cancer????


GREENIES REALLY MAKE ME ANGRY...THEY ARE SO STUPID...THEY PUSH THEIR OPINIONS UPON PEOPLE BY SCARMONGERING AND THEY ARE RETARDS BECAUSE THEY LACK ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES COMONSENCE AND HAVE NO IDEA OF CONSEQUENCE....AND I CAN"T SPEEL AND I DON"T CARE....GRRR....I NEED TO HURT A TREE...BRB

*
*
*
10 MINS LATER

AHH....thats better.

Oh and MMP is stupid because the idea of a democracy is that the majority wins...so how is it that the greenies or nz first...and the other party the dunnies or something...can be a part of the in power government...they are bloody MINORITIES....THAT MEANS HARDLY ANYONE WANTED THEM THEIR...BUT THE ARE...I MEAN...LIKE....WHAT THE F__K !!!!!

BRB
*
*
*
*
AHH...thats better...I'm gunna need a new tree by the end of this election....Hmmm
*
*
*
*
can someone reason with that and understand why it can happen???

Any way thats enuff for now...oh and IF YOU VOTE LABOUR I'LL KICK THE LIVING SH_T OUT OF YOUR TREES...GOT IT... :nono:

[MadDuck]

Take a deep breath Cowpoos....Thanks for sharing.

About time you found a bottle of JDs and sat an chilled

[cowpoos]

AND YEAH....AGREE WITH YOUR LAST POST TOTALLY MADDUCK

[Ghost Lemur]

Got to love how selfish Humans are.

Worked in the Charity industry (and it is) for a while and it cemented some truths.

I'm quite amused as to how many of you are planning on voting based on one policy. You do realise the money will come from somewhere, health restructuring, education restructuring.

One of the reasons I like Winnie is he knows the game and plays it well. Since MMP came in every election has been the same. Three platforms, Race (the asian community must be wiping their brow with relief thanking <inserted deity here> that he's moved on to another brown group), Crime, and finally how crap BOTH National and Labour are.

As an outsider (I voted once when I was 18 as I think you should always do something at least once before making a judgement on it, since then I've been a conciencious(sp?) objector), I do find it amusing how the New Zealand system works in practice.

It may be similar in other countries but haven't much followed them so can't comment. Here it works like follows. The shit hits the fan, economy sucks, high unemployment, huge cuts in services, greater gaps in wealth distribution, greater debt, etc etc.... Labour gets voted in.

Things are turned around, often turns out to be unpopular and difficult during the turnaround. Turn around happens, more employement more spending etc etc, people start thinking more and more about being able to now move up the food chain.... National gets voted in.

Rince and repeat.... don't believe me just look. It's generally why it Labour doesn't get more than two terms, because that's all it takes before people forget why they voted labour in.

As I said I wont be voting and could really care less who gets in so these are just observations.

One thing I found amusing, due to it's lack of comment in the mass media was the child care policy of National. Although the policy itself got attention what I never saw mentioned was that what their proposing is a rebate, that means you pay upfront and then get it back at the end of the year. As opposed to currently where the subsidy is payed directly to the preschool. As it costs $250 a week for my sons to go to preschool I was just picturing the effects that would have on a large number of families. Yet that fact was never mentioned in any of the reports I saw.

The only people in power are those who want power, the system of governance is secondary. Shame then that more often than not they're the last people who should be there.

[MikeL]

Three points:

1. An electorate that is selfish and short-sighted enough to vote in a government on the basis of promised tax "relief" ("oh the pain of paying tax - it's so unfair...") will amply deserve the contempt with which it will surely be treated by that government once in power. Yes, you might have $40, $80, $100 a week more in your pay packet. But do you really believe those who wield the real power in this country (and it's not Aunty Helen and her PC brigade) will allow you to keep it? Privatisation, corporatisation, user-pays...
And even if you manage to convince yourself that you are materially better off, look around you, and see the gap widening further...

2. The contempt with which a lot of people hold the Greens, and other minority groups based on specific moral or social principles (not just economic policies) is unwarranted. The Greens may be a bit flakey, but who else is going to speak for the environment? Saving whales and hugging trees may be good for a joke, but when the whales are all gone and all the trees are dying the joke will have turned a bit sour. Or do you think that market forces will save the whales and the forests?

3. The fact that elections in this country are dominated by economic policies, and particularly taxation and government expenditure, is a sad indictment of our national character and the ultimate triumph of the bean-counters who have succeeded in making us think like them.

So go ahead, vote National and smile smugly at the thought of that extra $40 or $80 or $100. And tell yourself that it will, finally, bring you happiness.

[badlieutenant]

Im with mike on this one, Id rather see a better health and education system. Which is really a selfish longterm view. If more of us do well it will have a flow on effect.
Raise the standard of living and education in this country and the politicians will have to get sharper.
They can stick thier tax cuts up thier ars. Id pay more tax if it meant free/cheaper education and a health system that wasnt running on a shoe string.

[MadDuck]

Im with mike on this one, Id rather see a better health and education system. Which is really a selfish longterm view. If more of us do well it will have a flow on effect.
Raise the standard of living and education in this country and the politicians will have to get sharper.
They can stick thier tax cuts up thier ars. Id pay more tax if it meant free/cheaper education and a health system that wasnt running on a shoe string.

Crawl back under the hole BL..really good to see ya back here man

[Lou Girardin]

Slightly off topic, but where does TVNZ exhume their 'interviewers' from?
They had Gareth Morgan from Infometrics on this morning, he gave a fairly thorough explanation of his concerns about Nationals tax cuts. Basically his concern was for inflationary pressures and the effect on interest rates.
When he finished, the interviewer said, "we can't afford it then"?
The only thing missing was the :doh:

[Flyingpony]

Politics is a like a can of worms.

As much as Nationals policy of tax cuts will be nice for everybody, they can't and won't buy my vote. They haven't told everybody the impact from this loss of income will have on Government spending like Police, Education and Health, etc. I'll side step road funding. I am concerned about the greater social costs of this National Policy like it might force the privatisation of Health care or lengthen the waiting list queue.

Labour's policy has probably been thought over very well and calculated properly. But the hidden taxes are everywhere and biting heavily into living costs.

However, NZ First idea of cutting GST off petrol is nice and simple and doubt there'll be a huge impact on long term Government income - given they are running large surpluses and the money saved from no petrol GST will come back via GST on other goods & services. It'll also be a nice indirect booster injection for the economy. Everybody will breathe easier and bread line living costs will drop.

[SimJen]

Politics is a like a can of worms.
As much as Nationals policy of tax cuts will be nice for everybody, they can't and won't buy my vote. They haven't told everybody the impact from this loss of income will have on Government spending like Police, Education and Health, etc. I'll side step road funding. I am concerned about the greater social costs of this National Policy like it might force the privatisation of Health care or lengthen the waiting list queue.


Yes but if the Labour government has all this surplus, then don't you think they should be putting it to better use? Labour also predict an even bigger surplus next year. So National are using money that already exists.......
Government run health care such as the NHS in the UK don't work. If you want an operation you may as well pay for it yourself to save the waiting or if you are happy to wait 3 years then fine.
Do you think labour have done well with Police, Education and Health....I think NOT!
911 calls don't seem to be picked up, not enough police, stuffed up the education system with NCEA debacle etc, health care worse than its ever been.

[Quasievil]

Labour's policy has probably been thought over very well and calculated properly

What makes you think National havent thought about there tax policy well, of course they have it has also been tested by independant economists, it has also recieved positive comentary by a large number tax specialists as well as banks.

For me Labour is out. Why ?

Social engineering, examples? prostitution reforms, gay marriages etc

Increases in Taxes, ie HP tax generation

Failure to fix the roads, ie Auckland, Wellington

Child Support, increasing the paying parents responsibilities to pay until age 19 (WHY ?)

Kyoto Protocol, signing up to it in the first place not realising its going to cost 1.5 Billion !a major mis-calculation.

Student Loans, cheap election bribe that we as tax payers must pay for in lost interest.

And there is lots more

Helen Clarke, without doubt the ugliest woman on the planet and not having to watch her on TV will be a vote winner in itself.

[Hitcher]

We're in election mode, people. What you are hearing is largely about style, not substance. Voters are more sophisticated than politicians or opinion pollsters give credit. Most are unlikely to be swayed by a single issue, like tax policy (even though one party's promises may increase disposable household income by the value of a small motorcycle each year). Most know that they can split their votes, although they may choose not to.

By the time they get to voting age, most people have formed reasonably strong political philosophies that allow them to empathise with parties of leanings similar to theirs. Vanilla eaters may be persuaded to eat hokey pokey and nibble at chocolate ripple but they will never eat Double Chocolate or Black Forest.

Also don't forget there are mechanisms to ensure that Governments are not fiscally imprudent or reckless, such as the Public Finance Act, the Reserve Bank Act and the Financial Responsibility Act.

[TonyB]

Yes but if the Labour government has all this surplus, then don't you think they should be putting it to better use? Labour also predict an even bigger surplus next year. So National are using money that already exists.......

911 calls don't seem to be picked up, not enough police, stuffed up the education system with NCEA debacle etc, health care worse than its ever been.
My point exactly. The money IS there, but Labour have chosen to hold it back simply so they can use it as a bribe to stay in power. That pisses me off!! I believe the money should go back into education, policing and healthcare and to hell with the tax cuts, but if the govt isn't going to use it sensibly, then we might as well have the chance to do something with it.

I have to wonder if Iraena Asher would be alive today if the govt had used this money wisely. Not to mention many, many others who have suffered on waiting lists etc. Even the most one eyed Labour support must be a little pissed off by this, (and no, I'm not a one eyed National supporter- didn't vote for them last time)

[SimJen]

[QUOTE=TonyB]My point exactly. The money IS there, but Labour have chosen to hold it back simply so they can use it as a bribe to stay in power. That pisses me off!! I believe the money should go back into education, policing and healthcare and to hell with the tax cuts, but if the govt isn't going to use it sensibly, then we might as well have the chance to do something with it.
QUOTE]

Nice one :)
They even lied to us (again) that it didn't exist....
Any I agree wholeheatedly with Quasievil's comments, she damn urrrrgleee.
Mind you Brash isn't much better, but it is politics....
At least the pair of them don't stand in front of the mirror all the time like Winston :)

[mikey]

Did anyone see that program on 3 last night called "The Pretender"? It followed a national candidate around for a day around the Wakatipu South electorate. It was hillarious! It felt like I was watching the office at times.
Here's what the tv3 site has about it.


i honestly thought that was a piss take,

[Lou Girardin]

I voted Labour in '99, because I'd had a gutsful of National, the ECA, particularly Jenny the Blimp. When Labour increased the top tax rate I didn't complain because I believed that society should protect the sick, the old and the young.
But 6 years later, you can't get an op in the public health system unless you're nearly dead, kids are leaving school functionally illiterate, the elderly are ignored. And we're treated like a cash cow if we have the temerity to use the roads.
Now I think that they've had long enough, if they cannot use my tax money wisely, I want it back. At least I can make sure that some bludgeing student of "hip hop culture" doesn't get her grubby mits on it.

[WRT]

Any I agree wholeheatedly with Quasievil's comments, she damn urrrrgleee.


Amen, brother . . . and I knew I had seen her face somewhere before - no offense intended, Mr Ed . . .

[TonyB]

Go Lou :Punk:
One thing that confuses me is that in the 70's we had:
A country of the same physical size as we do now (Du-UH), with the same state highways and more railways- ie a similar infrastructure
NZ railways with it's thousands of well paid staff doing SFA
State Forests with thousands of well paid staff
A free tertiary education system
A working state owned health system
Lower income tax
No GST
and only around 3 million people
and now we pay much higher taxes, we have GST, the forests and railways are pretty much owned by overseas interests and the vast majority of the old workforce has gone, we have to pay thru the nose for tertiary education, our health system is a joke, we still have roughly the same infrastructure, and there are now 4 million of us....

We are paying out more money to get less. Can anyone explain why that is? OK, I know we had massive debt, but that's pretty much gone now, right? Why are we going backwards?

[sir.pratt]

I have to wonder if Iraena Asher would be alive today if the govt had used this money wisely. )

probably not. she was a drunk that had already been given a chance to stay safe, but chose to ignore that help. there's plenty of examples of it every weekend, more of them than you know end up in a death.

wage/salary tax cuts need to be read in conjuction with the fine print - dr's fees going up, prescriptions costing more, fuel taxes, RUC increases, beneficiary costs, etc etc. it's the hidden taxes that hurt, the obvious ones are easy to deal with by lights and mirrors.

[Quasievil]

When Labour increased the top tax rate I didn't complain because I believed that society should protect the sick, the old and the young.


What the fuck ?? how do you figure that out,

why are people so hell bent on bashing those that make an above average income, its like hit the $60 k a year workers with higher taxes and you can hear the freckin socialists and dole blungers and lazy arses shout with joy, whats that all about !!

perhaps someone could start a party in NZ and have a policy where no one can earn above $40k , you could call it the communist party of NZ ?

wankers

(later part a general comment lou )

[sir.pratt]

there is basically NO relief for a double income/2 kids/mortgage family. and as for winnie wanting to take GST off petrol - how about taking it off staples like bread, meat and vegetables - get more people onto pushbikes/scooteres/motorbikes, healthier community, less pollution, less health costs, etc etc.

i was in the servo today, and there was my bike, 2 harleys, 2 hsv's and an xr8. regardless of the fuel prices, people are going to drive/ride their big toys. make the cuts somewhere where it benefits the most

[Lou Girardin]

Go Lou :Punk:
One thing that confuses me is that in the 70's we had:
A country of the same physical size as we do now (Du-UH), with the same state highways and more railways- ie a similar infrastructure
NZ railways with it's thousands of well paid staff doing SFA
State Forests with thousands of well paid staff
A free tertiary education system
A working state owned health system
Lower income tax
No GST
and only around 3 million people
and now we pay much higher taxes, we have GST, the forests and railways are pretty much owned by overseas interests and the vast majority of the old workforce has gone, we have to pay thru the nose for tertiary education, our health system is a joke, we still have roughly the same infrastructure, and there are now 4 million of us....

We are paying out more money to get less. Can anyone explain why that is? OK, I know we had massive debt, but that's pretty much gone now, right? Why are we going backwards?


Answer - Rogernomics and the New Right.
Remember Prebbles pledge to save rail? Well he did, saved it for Fay, Richwhite.
To be fair though, some things needed to be done. But we should have followed Australia's way. Not be economic lab rats for the rest of the world.
How they all applauded us at the time, didn't copy us though.

[Lou Girardin]

probably not. she was a drunk that had already been given a chance to stay safe, but chose to ignore that help. .

But she couldn't catch the cab they sent. It went to Onehunga, she was in Piha.
And she was bi-polar, not pissed. (May have been slipped some drug though)
But what the hell, just another dead loser right? Fancy calling for help and expecting to get it. Stupid tart.

BTW have another look at Labours tax relief, you should be on a winner unless you're well over $100k per year.

[Hitcher]

I think that additional taxes on people who earn over $60,000 a year is immoral on a whole number of fronts -- and not just because I earn over that figure myself. People who earn "higher incomes" already pay more tax than lower income earners because they earn more -- this would be true if there were a flat tax rate.

The Labour Party, on its much lauded pledge card, misled people about the impact of the 39 cents marginal tax rate when it claimed that no more than 5% of income earners would be affected. This was wrong at the time the card was published (it was 11% then) and the Labour Party analysts would have known this. Now over 20% of income earners fall into this category. Since then too Labour has introduced a whole range of new taxes and "user charges". I disapprove of discriminating against people because of what they may earn. Why should being good at what you do be a crime? I don't go out into the world each day to fail or be mediocre. I do it to succeed, both personally and for whomever I am employed. I don't see why I should have to be defensive or ashamed of what I earn. Punitive tax rates on higher income earners encourage this. "Egalitarian" New Zealanders need to grow up and get over themselves.

"Government" is a highly inefficient way of redistributing money. It requires a bureaucracy to do this. All of those lovely civil servants earning $60,000 a year or more, plus all of the overhead costs involved in providing them with offices, computers and phones. All having to be paid for before 1 cent of your taxes go to the needy. While more efficient than the public service in some countries, I find it hard to believe that the New Zealand public service couldn't be leaner or meaner.

[WRT]

I agree Hitcher, but then I have always believed that I am better at spending my own money than anyone else.

Helen, you can take your nanny state and shove it!

[TwoSeven]

Go Lou :Punk:
One thing that confuses me is that in the 70's we had:
A country of the same physical size as we do now (Du-UH), with the same state highways and more railways- ie a similar infrastructure
NZ railways with it's thousands of well paid staff doing SFA
State Forests with thousands of well paid staff
A free tertiary education system
A working state owned health system
Lower income tax
No GST
and only around 3 million people
and now we pay much higher taxes, we have GST, the forests and railways are pretty much owned by overseas interests and the vast majority of the old workforce has gone, we have to pay thru the nose for tertiary education, our health system is a joke, we still have roughly the same infrastructure, and there are now 4 million of us....

We are paying out more money to get less. Can anyone explain why that is? OK, I know we had massive debt, but that's pretty much gone now, right? Why are we going backwards?

Nope. NZ money is only worth 1/10th of what it was worth in the 70s and NZ has less than 1/4 of the debt (as a ratio of gdp), not to mention about 500 times more choice in products available on the market.

[Ixion]

What the fuck ?? how do you figure that out,

why are people so hell bent on bashing those that make an above average income, its like hit the $60 k a year workers with higher taxes and you can hear the freckin socialists and dole blungers and lazy arses shout with joy, whats that all about !!

perhaps someone could start a party in NZ and have a policy where no one can earn above $40k , you could call it the communist party of NZ ?

wankers

(later part a general comment lou )

:Oi: /me is a Communist you know. 'Tis a very GOOD policy. Give me all the money , and I will redistribute it. What's left after my "necessary expenses". And I promise you, no taxes at all. And free 1000cc motorcycles for everybody. Just vote for me. Actually, votes not necessary, democracy flows from the barrel of a gun

[badlieutenant]

comments from russell brown (http://publicaddress.net/default,2446.sm#post2446)

[inlinefour]

or donkeys. All this is is dangling carrots in frount of us so that we'll vote for them. I for one aint that stoooopid. :chase:

[MikeL]

not to mention about 500 times more choice in products available on the market.

No you shouldn't have mentioned it.

Wow. I can choose between McDonalds and Burger King and Wendy's and...
That's the great thing about the consumer society. Freedom of choice. With freedom of choice our society is truly democratic. And people are fulfilled because their needs are satisfied and their lives are made wonderfully rich by the range and variety of new products...
And the producers and the marketers make sure we're never bored or at a loss for something to fill in those empty spaces in our lives, because if we did stop consuming we might have time to start thinking...

[TwoSeven]

or donkeys. All this is is dangling carrots in frount of us so that we'll vote for them. I for one aint that stoooopid. :chase:

Sometimes with NZ politics I get the feeling that they are often dangling the donkey in front of the carrot, in the vain hope that the carrot might move :)

[Pixie]

Just checked out Labours carrot (http://www.labour.org.nz/Docs/ttr-calc/ttr-calc.htm).
It's official- my wife and I would be better off seperating and taking one kid each. We get nothing if we're together, but about $100 a week each if we split up. If we had another kid we'd only get about $45 a week between us.
So once again a govt policy that discourages 2 parent families will probably go ahead :oi-grr:

My biggest gripe with the money that Labour have "found" is that they clearly knew they had it all along. They've "discovered" it so they can use it as an election bribe. While they've been sitting on this money, how many people suffered or even died waiting for surgery? How many people suffered because there aren't enough cops on the beat? How much money did the economy loose due to poor roading? And why did we need the extra tax on our petrol?
Let's put the record straight,Labour have been perfectly honest about their budget.When they said there is not money available for tax cuts,the surplus was already allocated,it was the truth.
It was in the "bribes for the election account"

[Pixie]

comments from russell brown (http://publicaddress.net/default,2446.sm#post2446)
I was expecting backing music on Bown's site ;"my bleedy,bleedy heart"

[Pixie]

Slightly off topic, but where does TVNZ exhume their 'interviewers' from?
They had Gareth Morgan from Infometrics on this morning, he gave a fairly thorough explanation of his concerns about Nationals tax cuts. Basically his concern was for inflationary pressures and the effect on interest rates.
When he finished, the interviewer said, "we can't afford it then"?
The only thing missing was the :doh:
That's why Gareth always looks slightly pissed off when he's about to be interviewed

[Pixie]

Let's drop the "Newspeak"
Instead of refering to "surpluses" let's call it what it is -excessive tax

[Biff]

Tax cuts, must be election time, and what better way to convince people to vote for you than promising the age old tax cut, and of course promise increased spending on roads, education, policing etc at the same time. Yeah right.

Come off it guys n gals - don't fall for that lame old duck. It's the oldest trick in the book.

$10 a week for 2/3 of the population for a weakened economy, increased borrowing and less investment in infrastructure & services - not for me thanks.

Tax in NZ is still below international average for a developed country, police, nurses and doctors are well paid in comparison to other countries, the economy is strong, investment in NZ continues to rise - don't fk it up by falling for cheap gimmicks.

A tax cut will only cause harm in the medium/long term - so think long term and don't chase the quick buck.

[Lou Girardin]

No you shouldn't have mentioned it.

Wow. I can choose between McDonalds and Burger King and Wendy's and...
That's the great thing about the consumer society. Freedom of choice. With freedom of choice our society is truly democratic. And people are fulfilled because their needs are satisfied and their lives are made wonderfully rich by the range and variety of new products...
And the producers and the marketers make sure we're never bored or at a loss for something to fill in those empty spaces in our lives, because if we did stop consuming we might have time to start thinking...

Exactly. That's why we have shopping as recreation.
And a suicide rate the envy of the world.

[bane]

and as for winnie wanting to take GST off petrol - how about taking it off staples like bread, meat and vegetables

another case of winston picking out a hot issue and making some half arsed, populist comment...

My view is that GST is a useful tax. The simplicity of use in NZ makes GST very efficient. Australia's convoluted GST system costs far more to administer due to its complexity.
GST is fair as its a consumption tax - those on higher incomes consume more and hence pay more tax. Its also very difficult to avoid, unlike income tax.

I dont consider myself right wing, but my tax policy would be to slightly raise GST (to 15%) and make your first $20k tax free. Due to the efficiency of GST, its likely this wouldnt cost the govt one cent... Ive read that raising GST to 20% would allow the addition of a flat tax rate of ~25%, whilst still keeping the tax take around the same as now (no I cant back that up so dont ask!) .

[Ramius]

what would hitler say

Die achtbare Regierung zerstören neuen Seelands und Ihrer Leben langsam. Kommen Sie nach Deutschland und erweitern Sie sich die Zionist Weise!

[Hitcher]

Die achtbare Regierung zerstören neuen Seelands und Ihrer Leben langsam. Kommen Sie nach Deutschland und erweitern Sie sich die Zionist Weise!
Somehow I don't that's quite what Mr Hitler had in mind...

[Grumpy]

Tax cuts, must be election time, and what better way to convince people to vote for you than promising the age old tax cut, and of course promise increased spending on roads, education, policing etc at the same time. Yeah right.

Come off it guys n gals - don't fall for that lame old duck. It's the oldest trick in the book.

$10 a week for 2/3 of the population for a weakened economy, increased borrowing and less investment in infrastructure & services - not for me thanks.

Tax in NZ is still below international average for a developed country, police, nurses and doctors are well paid in comparison to other countries, the economy is strong, investment in NZ continues to rise - don't fk it up by falling for cheap gimmicks.

A tax cut will only cause harm in the medium/long term - so think long term and don't chase the quick buck.
What that man said. I wonder how many of those out there complaining about Labour are worse off now than they were 6 years ago...

[Ramius]

Somehow I don't that's quite what Mr Hitler had in mind...

I could be right about NZ, but, yes, I think you could be right about the second bit. Not quite to his liking I would say. Or should that be, it would not have been to his liking.

[Dafe]

:devil2: I love Nationals Tax Policy. If you go the extra mile, you'll be paid for it.
I pull around 80G a year but thats with some long hours which I choose to put in (60hours mon-fri). I reakon at least another 4G will fall into my pocket each year under Nationals Policy.

To all those people wondering where the money is coming from???

It will infact mean that National will cut money going other places. Those places will be a strong mixture of benefits. Benefits linked to non workers & solo mothers & immigrants primarily.

But right before election time, Nationals not about to comment on that.

I don't mean to sound selfish in any way. But I would be far happier getting more of the money I earn, even knowing that certain beneficiaries will no longer be receiving the money I'm making, and even though they don't have to go to work for it. (Just give me my money so I can buy a nice sporty 600cc bike!!!)

[geoffm]

What that man said. I wonder how many of those out there complaining about Labour are worse off now than they were 6 years ago...

I am - pay packet hasn't kept up with real inflation for a long time. One of the joys of running a small business in a competitive market..
Solved that one by bailing out and changing careers, which is currently giving me even less money, but shoudl improve.
Best of all, the new skills are in demand overseas...
Geoff

[TwoSeven]

I work in the IT industy. For me, there are no unions, no inflation adjusted pay, or all that other stuff.

If I dont like a job, want better conditions, or a pay rise. I get another job and negotiate a better contract.

Labour created the employment contracts act which I think is pretty good (having had to use it a couple of times), so for that reason they do ok. National let me keep my money, which I also think is pretty good.

[TwoSeven]

Die achtbare Regierung zerstören neuen Seelands und Ihrer Leben langsam. Kommen Sie nach Deutschland und erweitern Sie sich die Zionist Weise!

Do I really live in a sea country :)
Maybe its already been destroyed and sank :)

[Hitcher]

Labour created the employment contracts act which I think is pretty good
No, Labour created the Employment Relations Act, which repealed National's Employment Contracts Act. One was a poorly thought through, though sound piece of legislation. The other is an ambiguous, ideological, sop to unions.

[Lou Girardin]

another case of winston picking out a hot issue and making some half arsed, populist comment...

My view is that GST is a useful tax. The simplicity of use in NZ makes GST very efficient. Australia's convoluted GST system costs far more to administer due to its complexity.
GST is fair as its a consumption tax - those on higher incomes consume more and hence pay more tax. Its also very difficult to avoid, unlike income tax.

I dont consider myself right wing, but my tax policy would be to slightly raise GST (to 15%) and make your first $20k tax free. Due to the efficiency of GST, its likely this wouldnt cost the govt one cent... Ive read that raising GST to 20% would allow the addition of a flat tax rate of ~25%, whilst still keeping the tax take around the same as now (no I cant back that up so dont ask!) .


It may be efficient, but it hits the poor hardest.

[Hitcher]

It may be efficient, but it hits the poor hardest.
Could you please explain your logic on this?

[Lou Girardin]

Could you please explain your logic on this?

A greater proportion of their income is spent on necessities, so they pay more tax in proportion.
This is the reason that other countries have less efficient but more enlightened added value taxes.

[Hitcher]

A greater proportion of their income is spent on necessities, so they pay more tax in proportion.
This is the reason that other countries have less efficient but more enlightened added value taxes.
Hmmmm. GST isn't an added value tax, nor does it pretend to be. It is a consumption tax based on the purchase price of a good or service. If you don't spend any money (apart from on financial transactions and on the purchase of your primary residence) you spend no GST. I think arguments based on what money is spent (such as "necessities") are irrelevant. Agreed, that people who earn more probably spend more, but so what? An issue is what other forms of taxation exist and how "efficiently" these are applied.

Any attempts to dick around with consumption taxes create looholes that can be exploited. Look no further than Australia. There, GST applies to rakes but not to brooms. To cooked chicken but not to raw chicken. To bread cooked to an "approved" recipe but not other breads. Ridiculous.

[MikeL]

Hmmmm. GST isn't an added value tax

What's an added-value tax??

As I understand it, value-added tax is a tax that is applied at any point where a product or a service has value added to it and is sold. Therefore GST is a value-added tax, isn't it?

[Lou Girardin]

GST was based on the UK's VAT - Value Added Tax.
You may consider taxing necessities irrelevant, but it is very relevant if you're raising a family on low wages.
And then we have the issue of GST being an end tax. In many cases, a tax on a tax.

[bane]

GST was based on the UK's VAT - Value Added Tax.
You may consider taxing necessities irrelevant, but it is very relevant if you're raising a family on low wages.
And then we have the issue of GST being an end tax. In many cases, a tax on a tax.

My point was that compared to income tax, NZ's GST is very efficient - a small increase in GST can offset much larger amounts of income tax. In my utopia, the effect of higher GST on lower income earners would be more than offset by the fact the first $20K was tax free - unfortunately you cant convince people of this fact... ACT's original flatform (1996) was zero income tax based on the efficiency of GST - however, even they appeared to give up trying to convince people.

[Biff]

GST was based on the UK's VAT - Value Added Tax.


Which currently stands at 17.5%, considerably more than our current GST level, and the UK's highest earnings linked tax rate runs at 39%, and then there's National Insurance (for the health care service and social welfare), high fuel tax, stamp duty (when you sell a house) etc etc. So I guess we do alright in the grand scheme of things. Then again we don't have to pay for costly wars, or decent armed forces for that matter.

I'm with Mr H, I don't agree with those that earn more paying a higher tax %. It's not as if we (higher tax payers) get a better service. Although I must admit to thinking that it was a good idea when I wasn't in the top tax bracket, but once your there, with a family, it feels so very unjust, and it sickens you to see all those $$$$ going to the tax man every month. I guess that's why people generaly turn to the right wing political groups as they get older?

Then again I 'fiddle' (legally) my tax to a degree, in that I declare that a significant percentage of my salary is diverted to a flexible super annuation scheme ( seperate form my 'normal' pension scheme) for my aunt Bertha in Bermuda...

[Lou Girardin]

As long as you're prepared to bear the cost of a monetarist approach to taxation, that's fine.
But then you can't complain about rising crime, drug use, child abuse etc ad infinitum.
The results of the 80's and 90's reforms were bad enough, if Douglas had his way with the flat tax policy, those that could afford it would be living in fortresses now.

[Ramius]

Any attempts to dick around with consumption taxes create looholes that can be exploited. Look no further than Australia. There, GST applies to rakes but not to brooms. To cooked chicken but not to raw chicken. To bread cooked to an "approved" recipe but not other breads. Ridiculous.

Damn Looholes! And I had thought that they had been made extinct around NZ because of the pure stink of it all...

[WRT]

My point was that compared to income tax, NZ's GST is very efficient - a small increase in GST can offset much larger amounts of income tax. In my utopia, the effect of higher GST on lower income earners would be more than offset by the fact the first $20K was tax free - unfortunately you cant convince people of this fact... ACT's original flatform (1996) was zero income tax based on the efficiency of GST - however, even they appeared to give up trying to convince people.

You see a lot of ACT's policies getting recirculated round. Nationals orewa speach and tax cuts, labours "full and final" treaty settlements . . .

Is there an echo in here?

[TonyB]

Could you please explain your logic on this?
Say you have two families, each with 2 kids. They both spend $200 a week on groceries. Family A has a household income of $100K, family B has a household income of $30K. The $22.22 of GST family A spends each week on groceries is only 1.15% of their weekly income, but for family B it's 3.85%. Family B finds it much harder to afford to pay GST on basic necessities.

[MikeL]

Then again I 'fiddle' (legally) my tax to a degree

... which naturally raises the question of exactly how much of their nominal tax obligation those wealthy enough to have clever accountants actually pay...

... and whether it isn't these same people who complain the loudest about the unfairness of the system...

[Hitcher]

Say you have two families, each with 2 kids. They both spend $200 a week on groceries. Family A has a household income of $100K, family B has a household income of $30K. The $22.22 of GST family A spends each week on groceries is only 1.15% of their weekly income, but for family B it's 3.85%. Family B finds it much harder to afford to pay GST on basic necessities.
The way this argument is heading, next thing you'll be advocating that there be laws passed so that if families spend more than 20% of their weekly take-home pay on groceries, the taxpayer funds the balance. Just like the nutty state housing policy.

[TonyB]

The way this argument is heading, next thing you'll be advocating that there be laws passed so that if families spend more than 20% of their weekly take-home pay on groceries, the taxpayer funds the balance. Just like the nutty state housing policy.
NOOOOooooo, not I. I was just pointing out that GST is harder for person/ family on a low income to afford.