Cullen claims significant tax cut policy

**homer** · 2nd April 2008, 20:23

The way the tax should work is .
you work 40 hrs a week , you pay income tax at about 15% on that
you pay gst at about 15 %
you only pay tax on the first 40 hrs you work
any more hours its tax free , "after all youve worked your 40 hr week" thats enough tax to cover the costs .
you then are also being basically offered a tax break and also asked to save money as well because the choice of spending is up to you
after all, then if you want to rush out and spend its up to you how much xtra tax you pay

**Swoop** · 2nd April 2008, 20:46

Cullen is a lying piece of crap that needs a good buggering by an AIDS ridden homo with bad breath and smelly feet.

Tossers have had how many YEARS to assist the population and yet do nothing!

BLATANT incompetence in treasury... "billions in surplus - oops, sorry, ""defecit""... oh no! we have it wrong, it was actually a surplus". Get real!

**Tank** · 3rd April 2008, 11:11

Originally Posted by Jantar

I certainly DID.

Have a look at this thread and you'll understand why 40% of the people don't want tax cuts while the rest do. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=16243

THAT was a brilliant post.!

**yungatart** · 3rd April 2008, 13:19

Originally Posted by homer

The way the tax should work is .
you work 40 hrs a week , you pay income tax at about 15% on that
you pay gst at about 15 %
you only pay tax on the first 40 hrs you work
any more hours its tax free , "after all youve worked your 40 hr week" thats enough tax to cover the costs .
you then are also being basically offered a tax break and also asked to save money as well because the choice of spending is up to you
after all, then if you want to rush out and spend its up to you how much xtra tax you pay

What about students working two part time jobs, totalling say 18 hrs p/w..they pay secondary tax on the job with lesser hours!!
I reckon the first 10 hours should be tax exempt!

**homer** · 3rd April 2008, 19:02

Originally Posted by yungatart

What about students working two part time jobs, totalling say 18 hrs p/w..they pay secondary tax on the job with lesser hours!!
I reckon the first 10 hours should be tax exempt!

sorry . my point is you only pay tax on the first 40 hrs
you dont pay secondary tax
just 15 % up to 40 hrs
even if you had 10 jobs you pay 15 % tax on 40 hrs
if you work 2 hrs you pay 15 %

theres no tax brackets
its a win win
and you decide how much more tax you pay , depending on what you spend and what on .

your also already tax exempt on the first $2000 that you earn in a year

**Manxman** · 3rd April 2008, 21:32

Originally Posted by Jantar

I certainly DID.

Have a look at this thread and you'll understand why 40% of the people don't want tax cuts while the rest do. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=16243

...good story. I'm particularly pissed that the tax band thresholds have not increased in line with inflation each year, thereby actually decreasing my take home pay and increasing - by stealth - the tax take. WTF.

This is worth a read too...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve. Long story short, same outcome as the link above, ie the more you tax the less your take (ie people pish off to Oz). The Laffer Curve demonstrates that in some cases, it is actually better to reduce taxes and thereby increase tax take, by virtue of people working longer, and harder (a bit like the principle of low margin x high turnover = more revenue, compared to high margin x low turnover).

I used to (many, many moons ago) admire Cullen's staunch views on putting money away for the future, and back then didn't mind too much at being taxed more...but now I'm just blardy annoyed that he's dangled-then-denied us reductions in the past - then not followed through - and seriously misspent his (my & your) tax vault. Wealth transfer is what I think it's called...and I've had a gutsful of giving and getting feck all back. Why should I get continually penalised for putting in some effort at school and uni to get myself a decent job, only to see my salary get raped to pay some fecken bludger who doesn't lift a finger. Go figure that Mr Cullen.

Political arrogance and disrespect at its worst. Essentially, he's turned into a typical third-term-no one-knows-better-than-me arrogant prat and unbelievably thinks that he's going to get voted back in by lying. WTF II. However, completely losing touch with the real feelings of the electorate is actually a classic symptom of a power-drunk, self-serving government that has outstayed its welcome (and not being able to see that the light at the end of the tunnel is actually a big freight train heading straight for them).

BTW, 40% equates to a majority in Labour's tail-wagging-dog world...

National should romp home this time around, providing Key starts putting some meat on the bones of his policy.

I cannot imagine anything worse than a 4th term Labour government, supported by a Green Party (that would feck up the economy in about 2min 36.5sec if they were given any real power.) and I'll never forgive Sue Bradford for reaching into my home and telling me what I can and cannot do to discipline my kids...hey Sue, come closer, I've got some news for you....F*CK OFF. Btw, whilst I'm on the subject, s59 already covered child abuse. The problem lay in the inability of judges to use some common sense in applying it...that's all that was wrong with s59. Really. So why did you implement a law that cost millions to introduce and has created crims out of regular mums and dads? Because you so wanted to be seen to actually have done something whilst in power, and put Labour over a barrel in order to support it. Well bloomin well good on ya, what an achievement, you must feel sooo proud. Arse.

Incidentally, has the repealing of s59 actually prevented any kids being abused and having seven colours knocked out of them, er.....NO. Did you ever think about addressing the cause, instead of the symptom? Like invest some of that $3m it cost to change the law, to target at risk communities and e-d-u-c-a-t-e them on how to bring up kids in a loving way. Nah, cos that's too hard isn't it?

If anyone who supports the greens (*spit*) comes knocking on my door this election campaign, they'll leave not knowing WTF just hit them (figuratively speaking of course....or maybe not...

).

Massive rant well and truly over/:spudgrr:

Sorry.

No I'm not.

**steved** · 4th April 2008, 08:59

Whilst I am no lover of Labour and their policies, my original question I don't think has been answered.

What do you think Labour will put in the budget in May in regards to tax policy? Slight raise in thresholds? To what? Slight change in tax rate?

Cheers

**Sanx** · 4th April 2008, 10:25

Budget 2005. Cullen announces upward adjustment in the tax band thresholds effective 2008. Not a per-inflation-since-they-were-last-adjusted adjustment, but that'd be way too much to ask for. The adjustment effectively gives a tax cuts to those persons that work.
Budget 2006. Cullen announces the pre-election promise of an adjustment has been cancelled.

Who cares what the lying slimy pretentious prick says or promises? He's lied and broken promises before, so he'll happily do it again. No-one should trust a word that comes out of his mouth.

Labour - if you're too lazy to work and want free money for sitting on your fat arse all day eating KFC, vote for us!

**steved** · 4th April 2008, 10:51

Originally Posted by Sanx

Who cares what the lying slimy pretentious prick says or promises? He's lied and broken promises before, so he'll happily do it again. No-one should trust a word that comes out of his mouth.

I completely agree, and that goes for any politician, not just Cullen/Labour. However, you can still have an opinion of what you think he will do, if anything. I take it you think that the May budget will provide no change to the current PAYE tax policy?

I think Labour will feel 'forced' to offer some form of tax cuts as it seems to be a slam-dunk feeling amongst a great many of the voters. I am merely interested in what others think those tax cuts might be.

**Manxman** · 6th April 2008, 22:28

Originally Posted by steved

I completely agree, and that goes for any politician, not just Cullen/Labour. However, you can still have an opinion of what you think he will do, if anything. I take it you think that the May budget will provide no change to the current PAYE tax policy?

I think Labour will feel 'forced' to offer some form of tax cuts as it seems to be a slam-dunk feeling amongst a great many of the voters. I am merely interested in what others think those tax cuts might be.

...ok, my punt. Tax cuts offered will be in the lower bands, not 39% band - and they'll be bloody meagre at that. Mr Cullen has a complete aversion to assisting the 'rich, middle New Zealanders', notwithstanding the fact that:
1) they are the ones who tend to generate most jobs for everyone else; and
2) actually, Mr Cullen (along with many other Labour Party high flyers) is a 'rich, middle New Zealander' himself. Bluddy hypocritter.

**Sanx** · 7th April 2008, 02:18

Originally Posted by steved

I completely agree, and that goes for any politician, not just Cullen/Labour. However, you can still have an opinion of what you think he will do, if anything. I take it you think that the May budget will provide no change to the current PAYE tax policy?

Oh no - I think he will offer something. It's election year, after all. However, that something will be scheduled to come into effect in 2011, and they'll reverse it (should they still be in power, heaven forbid) in the 2009 budget.