Seen National's Tax Policy!?

[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 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

[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
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?