Nats' tax policy released

[Mully]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4720318a28435.html

I like this bit:
"It will apply for those with personal incomes of between $24,000 and $50,000 who do not receive any form of financial entitlement."

Translation:
"It will be for those who only have as many kids as they can afford and don't expect the State to pick up the extra bill"

[Hitcher]

Work it out for yourselves here:

http://www.nzier.org.nz/Site/Publications/NZIER_calculators.aspx

[firefighter]

Sounds bloody good to me, but I would say that, considering iv'e never recieved any "financial entitlement." I'll be stoked to know the islanders living across from me on the benefit for no-reason will finally have to miss out on something- maybe make up for all the sleep iv'e missed every thursday to monday....

[Gibbo13p]

Hows this going to affect a non custodial parent paying child support?

I haven't seen anything about balancing out child support or fixing it to suit this day and age where woman are supposed to be the bl--dy same as men when it comes to earnings or jobs, can someone point me to a link?

Wouldn't trust JoHn keys as far as I could kick him.... People like him are whats caused all this crash in america...over stated bank manager....

[Finn]

Hows this going to affect a non custodial parent paying child support?

By thinking twice before having unprotected sex.

[Gibbo13p]

By thinking twice before having unprotected sex.


Was unprotected because it was a happy marriage at the time, so was enjoyable too....

Don't regret having my kids because I have to pay the IRD for there mothers benefit....

[Tank]

From Kiwiblog....

This compares the situation at the beginning of the year, to what it will be like in year three of a National Government.

Again any errors are mine (well Kiwiblogs - this is afterall a cut / paste).

What it shows is a very significant package - earners in the $30,000 to $50,000 range get their tax bill reduced by 20% to 25%. Those on $100,000 get only a 12% reduction - and proportionally less as income grows (8.1% at $200,000).

Now Labour did deliver the first of the four stages of this tax cut package. They should get some credit for it. Sure it took nine years, lots of screaming, a previous package which they cancelled after the election, only did it because National and the public forced them to, and an admission now they in hindsight they wish they hadn’t done it, but for Labour that is as close as you will get

The rates used in this calculation are:
1. 12.5% to $14,000
2. 20% to $50,000
3. 33% to $70,000
4. 37% over $70,000
5. A $520 rebate for incomes from $24,000 to $44,000 then abating at 13% until $50,000

[Mully]

I haven't seen anything about balancing out child support or fixing it to suit this day and age where woman are supposed to be the bl--dy same as men when it comes to earnings or jobs, can someone point me to a link?


Irrelevant. Your child support is meant to be paying for half of your child(ren)'s upkeep. In theory, your ex should be paying the same. Plus it's unlikely that, if your Ex has full custody, she will be able to earn the same as you.

However, is we assume there is one child and your ex in the house. Are you seriously paying your child's share of:
Rent/Mortgage
Power
Groceries
Etc of the household? In addition to clothing, etc. It's generally unlikely.

What I do think is bizarre is if the custodial parent is on the DPB, the child support goes to IRD to offset the benefit. I don't see how that helps the sprog.

Anyway, as I understand it, child support is set on your pre-tax income, so even you should be better off with these tax cuts.

[MisterD]

People like him are whats caused all this crash in america...over stated bank manager....

Socialist meddlers screwing around with regulations to force banks to lend to poor credit risks are what's at the root of the current problems.

[Gibbo13p]

Irrelevant. Your child support is meant to be paying for half of your child(ren)'s upkeep. In theory, your ex should be paying the same. Plus it's unlikely that, if your Ex has full custody, she will be able to earn the same as you.

Not my problem she left me and she kept the kids and the house which was freehold at the time.

However, is we assume there is one child and your ex in the house. Are you seriously paying your child's share of:
Rent/Mortgage
Power
Groceries
Etc of the household? In addition to clothing, etc. It's generally unlikely.

3 kids and maybe not but I also give her money for half of sports costs and other required gear which doesn't come into it with the IRD as they ignore it.

What I do think is bizarre is if the custodial parent is on the DPB, the child support goes to IRD to offset the benefit. I don't see how that helps the sprog.

It doesn't do anything for my kids it supports her DPB and all the other wankers who don't pay for there children...

Anyway, as I understand it, child support is set on your pre-tax income, so even you should be better off with these tax cuts.

Thanks for that, I hope so

[Quasievil]

one of ACT's members Dr Muriel Newman is challenging the way Child support is worked out, no one else will, but then ACT is the only party with any balls to challenge anything, with backed up plans. Hence they are blessed with my vote.


Infact ACT is the only party that makes any sence at all unless youre a retarded bludger

:jerry:

I await the bait to work ?

[Murray]

I haven't seen anything about balancing out child support or fixing it to suit this day and age where woman are supposed to be the bl--dy same as men when it comes to earnings or jobs, can someone point me to a link?



Go to the Minstry of Men's Affairs!! Oh Sorry, we only have a Ministry of Womens Affairs!!!! Great idea Labour

[Mully]

one of ACT's members Dr Muriel Newman is challenging the way Child support is worked out, no one else will, but then ACT is the only party with any balls to challenge anything, with backed up plans.

What is ACT's idea, Quasi?? Sound interesting


Go to the Minstry of Men's Affairs!! Oh Sorry, we only have a Ministry of Womens Affairs!!!! Great idea Labour

Of course. Having a Ministry of Men's affairs would be sexist. Kind of like having a seperate political roll for one race of people would be racist.

Oh, hang on.......

[Hinny]

Socialist meddlers screwing around with regulations to force banks to lend to poor credit risks are what's at the root of the current problems.
You need to do a bit more reading.
You would hardly call the Republican Party Socialist. ...even tho' they have been forced to adopt Socialist policies to save their economy.

[firefighter]

Kind of like having a seperate political roll for one race of people would be racist.Oh, hang on.......

Yep that pretty much sums it up there.........they're looking at bringing in "only if your maori" seats for council too are they not?

[Max Preload]

Wouldn't trust John Key as far as I could kick him.... People like him are whats caused all this crash in america...over stated bank manager....

Actually, the democrat's darling Bill Clinton started all this shit rolling.

[Mr Merde]

Actually, the democrat's darling Bill Clinton started all this shit rolling.

Whilst "smoking a cigar"

[sAsLEX]

I await the bait to work ?

I would but law ensures I remain politically neutral....... :eek5:

[Quasievil]

What is ACT's idea, Quasi?? Sound interesting



Ms Newman wants it all to be reviewed, I tried to find the article but couldnt, Im unaware of any other party that will even touch it.
I have always voted for ACT, I know they get a bashing as being very right wing, but when you really get into the policies they promote they are balanced. Main reasons Im voting for them

1/ Law n Order is number ONE, Zero Tolerance for crime.
2/ Emmisions trading Scam legislation repelled
3/ Getting rid of the Bureacratic industry that has its grip on NZ and it ability to prosper

Have a look and tell me if you can find a better party to vote for

http://www.act.org.nz/files/pledge/20pointplan.pdf

http://www.act.org.nz/

And dont give me the anti Roger Douglas crap, if it wasnt for him we would still need a licence to subscribe to overseas magazine, and have the choice of one kinda fridge or floor covering, he got us out of the Communist stone age era and took us to the modern world, tho unfortunetly to have it fucked up by nanny state control and Bludger dependants.

the country where it sits is fucked, thanks to the last couple of decades of bollocks




http://www.act.org.nz/files/pledge/20pointplan.pdf

[MisterD]

You need to do a bit more reading.
You would hardly call the Republican Party Socialist. ...even tho' they have been forced to adopt Socialist policies to save their economy.



Au contrer, you should check out the democrat housing policies and Obama and his time with ACORN...

A good post from AdamSmith (http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/7954/)

[MisterD]

Ms Newman wants it all to be reviewed, I tried to find the article but couldnt, Im unaware of any other party that will even touch it.

Lindsay Mitchell (http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/) is a good authority on straight thinking on this stuff. ACT really are the only party with ideas.

[Ixion]

Oh, whoopy do, joy unbounded, a whole 1% less to the government. Thank you so much Mr Key, are you sure you can afford it. What about the other 38% y' ikey barstool.

[Finn]

Don't regret having my kids because I have to pay the IRD for there mothers benefit....

Then why should I have to pay for them as well? I didn't even get to nail your ex wife.

Don't take it personally. My post was directed at liarbours "cash for babies" policy encouraging NZ low lifes to breed like rabbits which has subsequently placed a another significant burden on social services.

[Hinny]

Au contrer, you should check out the democrat housing policies and Obama and his time with ACORN...

A good post from AdamSmith (http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/7954/)

Some might believe the spin but I think if you do a bit more investigating you might get to the nub of the problem.

[Hinny]

Wouldn't trust JoHn keys as far as I could kick him.... People like him are whats caused all this crash in america...over stated bank manager....

Given his grasp of economics as displayed during the last election you could well be right.
Interesting to see that even tho' he had made a mistake with his figures he took no notice of Cullen or Peters trying to point out his mistake and carried on with confidence. It was a classic display of the theory that it doesn't matter so much about the substance of your speech as how you deliver it.
Smile and look like you know what you are talking about and the public will think you're OK.
He's definitely out of his depth all round. But you have to remember that he is only a second term politician and so is probably doing pretty well. Well certainly better than Bill English or Don Brash. He's still in the kiddies pool tho'.

[Hinny]

Actually, the democrat's darling Bill Clinton started all this shit rolling.

Gave them the opportunity but it was the valuation of assets that really led to the crisis.
Having to value stuff at what amounted to fire sale values was the problem. It became cyclical and self perpetuating.

[EJT]

Go to the Minstry of Men's Affairs!!

Isn't that National? :eek:

[Street Gerbil]

Well good thinking about those hi tech tax credits!
Who needs R & D anyhow, given that all the smart guys are moving across the ditch?

[Quasievil]

Who needs R & D anyhow, given that all the smart guys are moving across the ditch?

Keep up with the propaganda releases mate, the statistices show they are all moving here from Australia.
Labour Government lead media common dude get with it

[Robert Taylor]

one of ACT's members Dr Muriel Newman is challenging the way Child support is worked out, no one else will, but then ACT is the only party with any balls to challenge anything, with backed up plans. Hence they are blessed with my vote.


Infact ACT is the only party that makes any sence at all unless youre a retarded bludger

:jerry:

I await the bait to work ?

I empathise with your thought train Quasi, I agree with a hell of a lot of what Act say but will give 2 ticks to National out of sheer pragmatism. Better a National Govt, hopefully with an Act coalition.

[Quasievil]

I empathise with your thought train Quasi, I agree with a hell of a lot of what Act say but will give 2 ticks to National out of sheer pragmatism. Better a National Govt, hopefully with an Act coalition.

Maybe, but if we all do that then the coalition will be dire, Im voting ACT, the two main parties are both scare mongerers with the same shit different wrapping, NZ needs major Gutsy solutions, not the same power over the people scenarios
Vote for freedom vote for ACT


BWAAAHHH

[Robert Taylor]

Maybe, but if we all do that then the coalition will be dire, Im voting ACT, the two main parties are both scare mongerers with the same shit different wrapping, NZ needs major Gutsy solutions, not the same power over the people scenarios
Vote for freedom vote for ACT


BWAAAHHH

My gut feeling is yes I totally agree with you, we need a radical shake up. But the socialists have bit by bit by bit actually won, they have institutionalised the expectant mentality and in turn engineered dependence on the state. Armed insurrection may be the only answer, in the end event.

[oldrider]

If only that traitor Lange hadn't lasted long enough to stuff Roger Douglas up, he might have finished the job last time and put the country back on it's feet forever.

I don't necessarily agree with Roger entirely but I would liked to have seen him finish the job.

I rember him saying there would be "pain before the gain" but Lange dropped his guts at the peak of the pain so the pain went on forever.

Lange shat on his family, shat on his party, shat on New Zealand, got pissed, shagged his secretary and then shat on Roger Douglas, big time!

Douglas's (gain) flat tax never got off the ground and the pain went on and on, thanks to that traitor Lange.

Even so, Roger gave New Zealand and subsequent National and Labour parties the best economic years we have had and now they have stuffed that up too!

Labour and National are the two worst options that New Zealand voters have got, followed by the Greens, Winston First, Anderton forever, Dunn nothing and all the other left wing loosers on offer including the precious Maori party.

What a mottly lot to pick from.

I do like the fact that the Maori party is making the Maori stand up and be counted and do their share of running the country and taking some responsibility for a change insted of just limping along with that blood sucking Labour party.

So far it's two votes for ACT but I am still listening and thinking. :confused: Cheers John.

[Salival]

I'm not knocking capitalism - I've done pretty well out of it - but at some point, the capitalist financial system as it works today will fall on its ass. Why? Because the entire economy is driven by the concept of growth which is, in actual fact, exponential. It's physically impossible to have exponential growth but only finite resources.

It's all a big bubble that must burst, sooner or later.

Money is debt, and when there's no more debt, there's no more money.

[davereid]

I empathise with your thought train Quasi, I agree with a hell of a lot of what Act say but will give 2 ticks to National out of sheer pragmatism. Better a National Govt, hopefully with an Act coalition.


I have always voted like this - taken the best option to get rid of something I hate, even if it means voting for something I hate less.

But this year, I will be true to my own heart.

I'm going to vote for something I support, rather than just to ensure change.

[NighthawkNZ]

So far it's two votes for ACT but I am still listening and thinking. :confused: Cheers John.


:stupid: but that may change to the serious mcgillian party... :apint:

[davereid]

..but at some point, the capitalist financial system as it works today will fall on its ass. Why? Because the entire economy is driven by the concept of growth which is, in actual fact, exponential. It's physically impossible to have exponential growth but only finite resources.

It's all a big bubble that must burst, sooner or later.

Money is debt, and when there's no more debt, there's no more money.



Our current money system may be err fragile. But Capitalisim isn't.

From caveman times, people have exchanged goods and services. The hunter swapping meat for sex, the miner swapping copper and gold for grain.

Early money systems relied on the value of a rare comodity - for example, your coin was made of gold. It was the value of the gold that allowed the money to used for exchange.

Had a massive mine arrived, full of gold, the money system would have failed.

Later, money systems merely represented the gold, or some other commodity of value to the community.

In our money system, the value of your money is determined by what exactly ?

The answer is nothing... except it's ability to meet your obligations to the government - ie TAX.

Money systems like this exist regardless of the type of trade, or government in power. Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, it doesn't matter, the money system is the same.

The US economy is in trouble, because the US Federal reserve found that gold mine.

Everytime the US economy started looking like slowing down, the Federal Reserve "printed" some more money.

The problem is really a political one, naturally it first showed up in financial markets, but it was not caused by Capitalisim.

[oldrider]

Our current money system may be err fragile. But Capitalisim isn't.

From caveman times, people have exchanged goods and services. The hunter swapping meat for sex, the miner swapping copper and gold for grain.

Early money systems relied on the value of a rare comodity - for example, your coin was made of gold. It was the value of the gold that allowed the money to used for exchange.

Had a massive mine arrived, full of gold, the money system would have failed.

Later, money systems merely represented the gold, or some other commodity of value to the community.

In our money system, the value of your money is determined by what exactly ?

The answer is nothing... except it's ability to meet your obligations to the government - ie TAX.

Money systems like this exist regardless of the type of trade, or government in power. Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, it doesn't matter, the money system is the same.

The US economy is in trouble, because the US Federal reserve found that gold mine.

Everytime the US economy started looking like slowing down, the Federal Reserve "printed" some more money.

The problem is really a political one, naturally it first showed up in financial markets, but it was not caused by Capitalisim.

This is not "new".

"Social debt" money systems (by their very nature) produce war, booms and busts as part of their natural cycle.

"Social credit" was introduced as an alternative to "Social debt".

Under NZ's first past the post electoral system the Social Credit party actually achieved 23% of the vote but only got 2 seats in parliament!

New Zealand was screwed by first past the post, Bruce Beatham died and Social Credit was gobbled up by the "Socialist" Democrat party, which faided into Robson and Anderton (I think) and thats where the "Kiwi Bank" idea sprung from!

It amazed me because Anderton was one of the most fiercly opposed to Bruce Beatham, when he was still with Labour!

Socialists will sell their soul's for power!

The only thing "social" about Social Credit, was it's monetary reform policy, all of the rest was more about "private enterprise" and individual "freedom".

Our present situation might have been much more easily managed or may not have even happened, had Social Credit won the treasury benches with their 23% under MMP.

Bob Jones "popular" New Zealand party cancelled out the threat from Social Credit and I believe "that" is why he was knighted to Sir Robert!

The claim that he destroyed Robert Muldoon was bullshit, Sir Robert Muldoon destroyed himself and (almost) New Zealand. :doh: John.

[alanzs]

Gave them the opportunity but it was the valuation of assets that really led to the crisis.
Having to value stuff at what amounted to fire sale values was the problem. It became cyclical and self perpetuating.

You are correct. Clinton loosened the availability of creditors to lend. They chose risky people to lend to. The Bush administration has pushed deregulating the finance industry for the past eight years. Now, the chicken has come to roost, so to speak.

When getting a refinance for a mortgage, the money was lent on the basis of "the market has been going up X percentage in the last X years" so you'd get an assessed value of that amount, not what the house next door sold for last week. No assessor came to look at your house, it was all a paperwork shuffle. As it turns out, I had mortgages with WAMU (sold quickly to Freddie Mac), which just was declared insolvent by the FDIC and taken over by JP Morgan. They were huge proponents of sub-prime mortgages.

I had a house which sold for double the price I bought it at three years earlier. We only sold because we moved back here. I was very lucky, but I haven't always been. I had a house I bought in the late '80's which sold for exactly the same price ten years later. Shit happens. :shit: