A little bit here a little bit there

[Mudfart]

Im a man of logic most times. Where is the sense in raising GST, ACC, and all the other things the NAts are going to hit us on, yet claiming to lower personal tax?
Why not leave personal tax where it is, and not raise the other taxes by so much?
Do they know how much it costs to change up all this shit?
Or are the only people who get further tax cuts, going to be the wealthy again?
My guessing game with this govt is: you dont know what the fuk is going to happen until it already has.
Election promise: tax cuts.

[CookMySock]

It's the old kiwi tradition called "jacking the price up." Yeah it stinks, but you can use it to your benefit by jacking your own prices up, and when you get complaints just point at all your costs going up, and whaddayaknow everyone just accepts your price rise! Works real good!

Steve

[jim.cox]

What did you expect?

That a politician would keep his promises?

Never happened before, why expect it to now?

[Oscar]

Im a man of logic most times. Where is the sense in raising GST, ACC, and all the other things the NAts are going to hit us on, yet claiming to lower personal tax?
Why not leave personal tax where it is, and not raise the other taxes by so much?
Do they know how much it costs to change up all this shit?
Or are the only people who get further tax cuts, going to be the wealthy again?
My guessing game with this govt is: you dont know what the fuk is going to happen until it already has.
Election promise: tax cuts.

Basically (and generalising) it's because Labour Voters pay very little income tax (vis. "Working for Families"), and some GST - whereas most National voters pay both.
If you increase GST and decrease income tax, then it's supposedly is an incentive to save.

[mynameis]

Not only is it an incentive to save and move the nation towards being more aware of saving up and not living on credit.

It also helps retain our highly skilled, highly educated people in the country which we need if we are to bridge the gap between us and other countries like Auzzie.

[spajohn]

It also helps retain our highly skilled, highly educated people in the country which we need if we are to bridge the gap between us and other countries like Auzzie.

I was discussing this proposal with a mate in Sydney (from Canterbury) and he was genuinely interested that a move like this from the Nationals would make him seriously consider moving his family, and business back to NZ.

[slofox]

- whereas most National voters pay both.

Unless they are hiding their income in a trust...essentially a ploy of the higher income bracket persons, whatever colour shirt they wear.

It was recently stated that 40% of NZ'ers pay NO income tax and trusts were identified as a part of that avoidance - hence the move to drop company tax rates down so the incentive for avoidance is lessened.

I still think Roger Douglas's flat tax rate was the way we shoulda gone...First $15,000 dollars tax free and then a flat rate on anything above that. Which would remove the disincentive to earn more...

[Mully]

It was recently stated that 40% of NZ'ers pay NO income tax and trusts were identified as a part of that avoidance - hence the move to drop company tax rates down so the incentive for avoidance is lessened.

Which if true is entirely unacceptable and must be addressed.

But then how many low income "earners" are effectively paying nothing (by the time they get WFF payments and whatnot).

Meh - I'm likely to be better off. That's what matters.

EDIT: Yes, I'd like a flat tax rate too - with a tax-free bit at the bottom. I haven't bothered to research too much on it cos it's not likely to happen, but still.

[mynameis]

I was discussing this proposal with a mate in Sydney (from Canterbury) and he was genuinely interested that a move like this from the Nationals would make him seriously consider moving his family, and business back to NZ.

Puts things into new fresh perspective.

Unless they are hiding their income in a trust...essentially a ploy of the higher income bracket persons, whatever colour shirt they wear.

It was recently stated that 40% of NZ'ers pay NO income tax and trusts were identified as a part of that avoidance - hence the move to drop company tax rates down so the incentive for avoidance is lessened.

I still think Roger Douglas's flat tax rate was the way we shoulda gone...First $15,000 dollars tax free and then a flat rate on anything above that. Which would remove the disincentive to earn more...

Which if true is entirely unacceptable and must be addressed.

But then how many low income "earners" are effectively paying nothing (by the time they get WFF payments and whatnot).

Meh - I'm likely to be better off. That's what matters.

EDIT: Yes, I'd like a flat tax rate too - with a tax-free bit at the bottom. I haven't bothered to research too much on it cos it's not likely to happen, but still.

Yeap has been happening in NZ for decades under Labour leadership but National have said they will fix it, good on them.

The tax on trust is something ridiculous like 5% (not 100% sure) so if I have an investment property, open a trust, I become a trustee, put the house under it and I save thousands.

[oldrider]

Parkinson's law: "Work evolves around the time allotted"! (three years)

Politicians must be seen to be doing something! Anything at all!

The only bad publicity for a politician, is "no" publicity!

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic fades into insignificance, when compared to the roll of the modern MMP politician!

[Mully]

Parkinson's law: "Work evolves around the time allotted"! (three years)

Politicians must be seen to be doing something! Anything at all!

The only bad publicity for a politician, is "no" publicity!

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic fades into insignificance, when compared to the roll of the modern MMP politician!

Was this meant to be in the "sayings" thread in Jokes??

[Mully]

The tax on trust is something ridiculous like 5% (not 100% sure) so if I have an investment property, open a trust, I become a trustee, put the house under it and I save thousands.

IIRC, (and I'm only a bush lawyer), the tax on trust income is 30% - so the guys paying the top rate (39%) end up running all their income through a family trust. I thought the idea was to align the two rates to avoid that happening (and raise GST to recover the revenue).

[mynameis]

IIRC, (and I'm only a bush lawyer), the tax on trust income is 30% - so the guys paying the top rate (39%) end up running all their income through a family trust. I thought the idea was to align the two rates to avoid that happening (and raise GST to recover the revenue).

You could be right I don't know where that 5% came from

Yeah the whole idea is to align them to stop all the hussling from company, to trust, to personal ect..ect...

[slofox]

IIRC, (and I'm only a bush lawyer), the tax on trust income is 30% - so the guys paying the top rate (39%) end up running all their income through a family trust. I thought the idea was to align the two rates to avoid that happening (and raise GST to recover the revenue).

I think that is correct Mully (30%). Hence the move to lower company tax rate to 30% as well...

[spajohn]

Don't forget there are other incentives for trusts...ie to stop the ex-wife/husband taking your assets you had before she/he came along, or losing the family home when some dodgy investment company nicks off with your life savings. My point being they are not just for undesirable sods avoiding stuff, and there is valid use for protecting the welfare of your family in this day of civil lawsuits and scheisters trying to rort you.