The Election - who among us will vote National?

[Robert Taylor]

Bingo. I'd happily pay more tax if I thought politicians would actually do some good with it.

(BTW, that's why the Greens do really well in overseas votes - they'll vote for "Clean and green" if they don't have to live with it)

More to the point its the tax they are not collecting. We had a US $1000 consignment turn up a few days ago and it arrived without any interception by customs, therefore no broker fees to clear, no port fees and levies and therefore also no gst on the value of the goods, on the freight and on all of the levies.

Now thats all very nice but in reality its wrong. There is nothing wrong in principle with Governments collecting taxes at the border, its another income stream and heaven knows they need it with so many people expecting Governments to pay for everything.

Clearly Customs are not doing their job or dont have enough capacity to vet every incoming parcel / coomodities into the country. If the infrastructure and staffing level of customs was significantly increased then they would be able to collect tax on a whole lot more inbound freight including the great inequity that occurs, a high percentage of private imports not attracting any processing cost or gst at all. The potential for extra tax revenue would be massive and should far outweigh the cost of increasing the size of NZ customs.

[Smifffy]

I'm sure if you wrote them a letter and enclosed a cheque, they'd bank it. That would surely salve the conscience when you charge GST on the goods to the end customer?

More to the point its the tax they are not collecting. We had a US $1000 consignment turn up a few days ago and it arrived without any interception by customs, therefore no broker fees to clear, no port fees and levies and therefore also no gst on the value of the goods, on the freight and on all of the levies.

Now thats all very nice but in reality its wrong. There is nothing wrong in principle with Governments collecting taxes at the border, its another income stream and heaven knows they need it with so many people expecting Governments to pay for everything.

Clearly Customs are not doing their job or dont have enough capacity to vet every incoming parcel / coomodities into the country. If the infrastructure and staffing level of customs was significantly increased then they would be able to collect tax on a whole lot more inbound freight including the great inequity that occurs, a high percentage of private imports not attracting any processing cost or gst at all. The potential for extra tax revenue would be massive and should far outweigh the cost of increasing the size of NZ customs.

[5150]

I really don't give a fuck who you vote for, but please vote for a reason.

When I'm walking home in winter by the light of my hand-cranked torch and I get a stone in my birkenstocks, I'd like to believe that it was because most of the country didn't want deep sea drilling, rather than down to a coin toss.

Just think, if the coin went the other way I could just as easily have been in a state house cooking P in the laundry.

Agreed

[Usarka]

Now thats all very nice but in reality its wrong. There is nothing wrong in principle with Governments collecting taxes at the border, its another income stream and heaven knows they need it with so many people expecting Governments to pay for everything.
.

Cool obviously also a capital gains tax supporter!

[Robert Taylor]

I'm sure if you wrote them a letter and enclosed a cheque, they'd bank it. That would surely salve the conscience when you charge GST on the goods to the end customer?

1) I have already written to my local MP ( A National one Im happy to say ) expressing concern about NZ Customs being inconsistent.

2) I wrote a cheque out to the local National party last week and they have banked it

[Robert Taylor]

Cool obviously also a capital gains tax supporter!

No, a supporter of consistency and fairness. Also a proponent of self responsibility instead of looking to the Government for everything.

[avgas]

2) I wrote a cheque out to the local National party last week and they have banked it

Because you felt they did not have enough money?

[Banditbandit]

the top 10% wealthy in this country apparently pay 70% of the taxes.

That is only true in a particular context and with certain conditions ... it is not generally true ...

Go here .. this table is what that assestion is based on ...

http://www.grownzeconomy.co.nz/uploa...ew_Zealand.pdf

The top 10% pay 37% of the tax ... but once you take into account things like Working for Families and other moneys returned to tax payers, then as a total, the group earning under $50,000 gets more money back than they pay in tax ... now that is not true for every individual in the group - and there will be many many people uin this forum who earn under $50,000 and get nothing back in terms of Working for Families or any other payouts .. they simply pay tax

The 1.3 million households with incomes under $110,000 a year collectively pay no net tax—that is, their total income support payments match their combined income tax.

Note this says "collectively" ... I earn more than $70,000 a year - I get no pay outs ... so I am paying tax ... and people here will be in the same position ..

To make the bald generalized statement that the top 10% or earners pay 70% of taxes and ignore the reality of individuals paying tax is misleading ...

[riffer]

Just got an email from Chris to clarify to you all:

"Over the last couple of years the ACC levies for the Motor Vehicle Account have increased substantially. At present the bulk of vehicle registration costs relates to ACC levies. Motorcyclists have been particularly penalised by ACC levy increases.

Labour is concerned that increased vehicle registration costs are penalising those who own more than one vehicle, are placing undue financial pressure on those who only travel short distances, such as the elderly, and may be leading to an increase in the number of unregistered vehicles on the road.

Labour will investigate transferring a greater portion of the ACC motor vehicle annual licensing fee onto the petrol levy so that everyone pays a fairer share of the Motor Vehicle Account and no one group is heavily burdened.

ACC is in sound financial shape, and Labour does not see a need for ACC levy increases. Recent deficits were the result of lower investment returns due to global economic conditions and one-off changes to the way historical claims liability is calculated. ACC is now back in surplus and we do not believe that any of the improvements we are suggesting will require levy increases."

[bogan]

Looks like political waffle to me, supposed to sound good, but no tangible promises. And no hint of a reduction of the levies to the pre 2010 increases.

[yachtie10]

Just got an email from Chris to clarify to you all:

"Over the last couple of years the ACC levies for the Motor Vehicle Account have increased substantially. At present the bulk of vehicle registration costs relates to ACC levies. Motorcyclists have been particularly penalised by ACC levy increases.

Labour is concerned that increased vehicle registration costs are penalising those who own more than one vehicle, are placing undue financial pressure on those who only travel short distances, such as the elderly, and may be leading to an increase in the number of unregistered vehicles on the road.

Labour will investigate transferring a greater portion of the ACC motor vehicle annual licensing fee onto the petrol levy so that everyone pays a fairer share of the Motor Vehicle Account and no one group is heavily burdened.

ACC is in sound financial shape, and Labour does not see a need for ACC levy increases. Recent deficits were the result of lower investment returns due to global economic conditions and one-off changes to the way historical claims liability is calculated. ACC is now back in surplus and we do not believe that any of the improvements we are suggesting will require levy increases."

What that says to me is we might change things but no promises (as if there worth anything anyway). But as the books are now good we will look at spending a lot more so you can bet reductions are unlikely but we will hand out more money to buy votes and get it back into trouble.

[riffer]

What that says to me is we might change things but no promises (as if there worth anything anyway). But as the books are now good we will look at spending a lot more so you can bet reductions are unlikely but we will hand out more money to buy votes and get it back into trouble.

You really need to change your meds.

[The Everlasting]

I don't even know who to vote for,Phil Goff doesn't really seem like a leader,John Key does,but I don't like his policies....

[yachtie10]

You really need to change your meds.

just balancing things
Wasnt it mr goff who promised they would return things to the way they were in ACC (yes as i was there)
Then backtracked and now that waffle.

anybody who tries to convince anyone to vote labour on the strength of that statement really does need meds.

vote for who you want but make your arguements reasonable

I dont like a lot of things national do but i cant see one thing labour are promising that will help me get a job (in fact most will have the opposite effect)

[Smifffy]

Thanks Riffer,

Chris replied to me with the same content from his policy release. As someone pointed out prior to my involvement the promise is to 'investigate' the issue. Still a far cry from the position stated in the OP.

I can't see moving the levy to fuel being a palatable political option myself.